Guest post by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times.
Last week, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and other lawmakers introduced legislation in the House of Representatives calling for major changes in the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The RFS is the reason why most US automobile fuel contains ten percent ethanol. The bill would eliminate the current mandate to blend 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol into fuel by 2022 and ban ethanol fuel content over ten percent. But are ethanol mandates good public policy?
For decades, ethanol vehicle fuel was touted first as a solution to reduce oil imports and second as a solution for global warming. The Energy Tax Act of 1978 established the US “gasohol” industry, providing a subsidy of 40 cents per gallon for ethanol blended with gasoline. President George W. Bush promoted biofuels to reduce dependence on foreign oil, stating, “I set a goal to replace oil from around the world. The best way and the fastest way to do so is to expand the use of ethanol.” Last year the Environmental Protection Agency promoted E15, a fifteen percent ethanol blend for cars and trucks, announcing, “Increased use of renewable fuels in the United States can reduce dependence upon foreign sources of crude oil and foster development of domestic energy sources, while at the same time providing important reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.” But it appears that these two reasons for promoting ethanol vehicle fuel have disappeared.
First, US dependence on oil imports is greatly reduced. Net imports of crude oil peaked in 2005, providing 60 percent of US consumption. In 2012, just six years later, oil imports dropped to 40 percent of consumption and continue to fall. Imports from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries declined from half of US imports in 1993 to 40 percent of imports 2012. Canada is now the largest single-nation supplier of crude to the US, rising from 14 percent in 1993 to 28 percent today. Construction of the Keystone pipeline would switch additional imports from OPEC to Canada.
At the same time, US oil production is ramping due to the hydrofracturing revolution. Oil production from shale fields in North Dakota and Texas led to a boost in US oil production by 30 percent since 2006. Industry experts predict almost all US petroleum will come from domestic and Canadian sources by 2030. There’s no longer a need to force ethanol use to reduce oil imports.
Second, recent studies show that the use of ethanol and biodiesel does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For many years, proponents of decarbonization assumed that the burning of biofuels would be “carbon neutral.” The carbon neutral concept assumes that as plants grow they absorb carbon dioxide equal to the amount released when burned. If true, the substitution of ethanol for gasoline would reduce emissions.
But a 2011 opinion from the Science Committee of the European Environment Agency pointed out what it called a “serious accounting error.” The carbon neutral concept does not consider vegetation that would naturally grow on land used for biofuel production. Since biofuels are less efficient than gasoline or diesel fuel, they actually emit more CO2 per mile driven than hydrocarbon fuels, when proper accounting is used for carbon sequestered in natural vegetation. Further, a 2011 study for the National Academy of Sciences found that, “…production of ethanol as fuel to displace gasoline is likely to increase such air pollutants as particulate matter, ozone, and sulfur oxides.”
Ethanol fuel is no bargain. For example, when gasoline is priced at $3.40 per gallon, the 85 percent ethanol blend (E85) is priced at about $3.00 per gallon. But since the energy content of ethanol is only 66 percent that of gasoline, a tank of E85 gets only about 71 percent of the mileage of a tank of pure gasoline. E85 fuel should be priced at $2.41 per gallon for the driver to break even. According to the US Department of Agriculture, ethanol fuel remains about 25 percent more expensive than gasoline.
World biofuel production has increased by a factor of seven over the last ten years. Corn and soybean prices have doubled over the same period. (US Dept. of Energy, Food and Policy Research Institute, 2011)
Mandates for ethanol vehicle fuel are also boosting food prices. Forty percent of the US corn crop is diverted to produce about ten percent of US vehicle fuel. Global corn and soybean prices have doubled over the last ten years in concert with the growth in ethanol and biodiesel production. Anyone who drives a car or eats food is paying higher prices due to ethanol mandates.
But isn’t ethanol fuel sustainable? Not in terms of water consumption. Studies by the Argonne National Laboratory and the Netherlands University of Twente found that ethanol production consumes twice to dozens of times more water than gasoline produced from petroleum, even from Canadian oil sands.
Gallons of water consumed per gallon of fuel produced for gasoline, ethanol, and biodiesel from various sources, including irrigation and fuel production, but not including precipitation. Variations in water consumption for three US regions and global averages for ethanol and biodiesel are primarily due to amount of irrigation used and agricultural yield. (Argonne National Laboratory, 2009; University of Twente, 2009)
Suppose we return to using corn for food and gasoline to power our vehicles?
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
The news media and big oil has got into all of your heads You all are just repeating like puppets
I deal with E10 in 0F or colder weather.
I love needing extra 10 minutes warmup time.
funny things those btus…we need them.
I deal with real temps as low as -20’s F … and have never had a single issue with E85. There is no noticeable difference in engine operation. And ethanol’s freezing point of -172 F is a significant imporovement over gasoline’s -40 F.
And you show a misunderstanding of BTU’s – we are not using them to “heat” as with your home. They are used to operate an engine. And there ethanol’s 100 octane is a significant benefit.
I’m OK with a minor amount of ethanol in gasoline as an octane booster, but that’s about it. As a transport fuel, it loses….it cannot be transported via pipeline, it has a low energy density, and the present farm lobby/ethanol industrial complex forces corn ethanol.
However, it is a useful chemical…at Kraft Foods, we bio-converted parmesan cheese-whey permeate (a very potent, high-strength organic pollutant) into ethanol with an onsite fermentation/distillation process. Very slick & cost-effective. Many industrial waste streams from beverage bottling, confectionary and the like could be converted into ethanol cost-effectively with modern technologies. King Corn crushes all comers….ask the farmers of Illinois and Iowa, they’ll tell you.
It absolutely can be transported by pipeline – all you need do is type “ethanol pipeline” into Google to completely disprove the claim it cannot. Ethanol pipelines are in service in many places, including a recent 16″ pipeline in New Jersey.
That said in MANY areas the ethanol processing plants are located both where the corn is grown and where their customers are – thus eliminating the need to pipe the products at all.
I agree there are many technologies and feedstock sources that can be used to produce ethanol. And think they should be exploited.
A. Scott says:
April 17, 2013 at 6:44 am
Ian W – if ethanol use is the reason for corn price increases then why did the price of most all other commodities increase as well. Corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton and others.
As to your statements on corn – I suggest research – start with the USDA Filed Grain Yearbook, and educate yourself on US corn use and exports.
The US imported 765,000 metric tonnes of corn in 2011/ 2012. We exported 38,430,000 metric tonnes. ….
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Well may be, but this misses the point that I think that Ian was making.
The amount of corn exported by the USA has fallen markedly in recent years due to the diversion of the crop for fuel, rather than being used as feed.
For example, in 2005/6 the US exported some 56.000 million tonnes
In 2006/7, it exported some 54,000 million tonnes
In 2007/87, it exported some 60,600 million tonnes
Since then it has been on a downward trend exporting just 38,000 million last year. In other words, exports are down some 25 to 30%. This is why many in the developing world are going hungry.
Further to my last post, perhaps I should have added the figure for 2012/13 (the most up to date figure which A Scott omitted to cite). In that year (ie., last year), the USA exported just 22,500 million tonnes, ie., exports were down by 60% from their peak of 2007/8.
Obviously, this has an effect on both the price and the availability. Both of which is fundamental, especially for those in the developing world who live on the edge of subsistence.
It is an inescapable fact that there are better uses for agricultural land and crops than fueling cars.
I have been sitting here howling with laughter at the indignant ethanol enablers who have showed up in this thread. I am reminded of the Will Rogers line “It isn’t what we don’t know that gives us trouble, it’s what we know that ain’t so.” Bottom line, ethanol is a boondoggle inflicted on the public by congress critters bought and paid for by big agriculture. Like most green scams, it’s politics and cash that drive it, not engineering. By the way, my car routinely gets 30+ mpg on plain 87 octane gas on the highways, and between 3 and 5 mpg less with E10 ethanol, with poorer overall performance.
It is IMMORAL to burn food in cars. POINT. No more to be said.
Another reason to end the ethanol mandate: Destruction of small engines. It cost me $95 to replace the carb on my $225 Stihl chainsaw despite using additives that were supposed to stop the ethanol fuel degradation. The shop says that 90% of its business is due to ethanol problems. He advised me to buy Ethanol-free fuel from Stihl at $7.00 per quart or to go to the local airport and buy aviation fuel at $6.70 per gallon.
When I went to the airport I was in line behind the local fire company who was filling 6-5 gallon cans with aviation fuel to power their chain saws. ” All the 4-wheelers come here too” to avoid ruining their machines.. The destruction of ethanol continues….
And despite universal agreement that it’s a bad idea not only does it continue but it’s going to increase to 15%.
@A.Scott 1:25 pm.
The Distillers Dried Grain Solids is indeed a high protein feed. But is is also a low calorie feed. You cannot get something for nothing. The calories in the corn were used to make up the ethanol.
To thunderloon and all the other loons out there, get your chemistry right. The flashpoint of gasoline is ~ -50degF, methanol is +40 deg, and ethanol is + 62 deg. F. Gasoline is a MUCH more dangerous fuel to handle. Both alcohols have a minor safety problem in that the flame is usually very hard to see in sunlight, while gasoline pumps out volumes of yellow flame and sooty smoke.
Both alcohols are corrosive by themselves, incompatible with typical seals used for gasoline, and can degrade to even more corrosive chemicals, such as formic acid, acetic acid, etc.
Oxygenated fuel(alcohol, methanol, methyl-tert-butyl ether which poisons water supplies) have some small benefit in areas subject to smog inversions. The 10% or so addition reduces nitrogen oxides and other reactive chemicals that form smog. For the rest of us it’s not needed.
And then again, gasoline doesn’t freeze. It just gets thicker. At some point, about 40 below F the alcohol will separate along with any water in the fuel, and may freeze into some icy slush. Some of the high boiling stuff will congeal in the bottom of the tank, and maybe in the fuel pump and injectors. But it doesn’t freeze.
Corn ethanol IS an economic and social disaster as others have pointed out. We’ve probably killed 20 million 3rd world kids with this stupid fuel from food debacle over that past 5-6 years.
The critical low temerpature property of fuel is the ignition point. Gasoline is added to ethanol to make it ignite at low temperature. The vapor pressure of ethanol is not high enough to provide vapor needed to burn and start the engine at low temperatures. Not a problem at most temperatures, but a problem when it is cold.
Also a problem with growing fuel is Land Use Change. This includes both direct LUC where crop land is turned into energy crop land (or non-crop land is used to grow fuel), or indirect LUC where remote land is converted from forest or the like into cropland to make up for the lack of imported corn or other food crops because are not available due to conversion to ethanol or biodiesel.
Many have studied this issue and there is little displacement of fossil fuel by energy crops. And there are plans to grow more crops for fuel to meet the Renewable Energy mandates (if technologies like Cellulosic Ethanol ever become viable, a topic for another post.)
logicalchemist says:
April 17, 2013 at 8:35 pm
We’ve probably killed 20 million 3rd world kids with this stupid fuel from food debacle over that past 5-6 years.
=====================================
Can you name one person that was probably killed ? With 20 million, you should be able to find one … and who mandated that the USA has to be the World’s Farmer as well as the World’s Policeman – the latter for which the USA constantly gets vilified and bombed??
Again, kudos to Anthony for allowing opposing viewpoints, and Bravo to Carl Brannen for saying:
“I’m busy working on my PhD in physics and don’t have time to argue about this. I know it’s pretty much hopeless anyway. Suffice it to say that you can approach the truth by doing your own reasearch. As with global warming, that means you have to read the articles written by *both* sides. Eventually you will learn to recognize garbage.”
Carl, I hope you’re a young guy. We older scientists of course know this, but are a bit worried about younger generations.
I’m not in the bioethanol industry, but part of my job, for which I make shitpiles of money, is understanding the dynamics of this – where it was, where it is now, and where it’s going. I get paid to be right. I also get to do hands-on science in the competing field too. I’m a lucky guy – except when I have to read some of the shit posted above.
This isn’t climatology, where the object of the exercise is to take essentially zero new data and concoct the next biggest lie to dupe the public. This is an active field of science where new basic research and new engineering developments progress the field on a daily basis. This ain’t 2011, it’s 2013. So get with the data:
It’s here, and in a very readable format:
http://ethanolrfa.3cdn.net/8fabfbf8fbcb08d399_xom6injp6.pdf
… and of course, lastly, Bravo to A. Scott for his efforts. This man knows what he’s talking about, as opposed to some prominent posters here, who not only should know better, but think that because bioethanol is perceived to be some greenie thing (it isn’t), they can get away with turd recycling here. Not so.
Look at the jobs data. Look at the DDGS exports data.
I have to admit, I’m still wondering where some of you are getting your carbureted cars. Does anyone still make them? Fuel injection is SO much easier to meet emissions regulations with, and with the newest generation of engine controls (ie. 1990 and newer) it’s a piece of cake for automakers to implement. Heck, there’s a DIY kit for it, MegaSquirt. EFI is now Old Tech and ridiculously easy to retrofit if you’re trying to get your 69 Buick back on the road.
My experience with the oil industry, living in Calgary and dealing with it in some way or other my entire working life, is that if it’s gasoline or otherwise a transportation fuel, the industry will use subsidies or whatever is available and develop something useful. The greenie idea, though, is to take subsidies and fritter and waste them away, building useless tripe like solar panels or windmills, and cashing out just before the crash.
I don’t think the Ethanol “boom” was a bad thing… but it’s time to back off on the mandates, they’re no longer needed.
And regarding emissions: an engine optimized for the lowest emissions will most likely be the most efficient, which means it makes good power and gets good mileage. So emissions are a nice “target”, but not the goal. The goal is to get power and economy, while putting nothing out the tailpipe but harmless H2O and CO2. The EPA injected themselves and altered this natural and already in-progress evolution of technology, and at a time when there was a fuel shortage and people were already scrambling to get smaller vehicles, while patting themselves on the back for “achieving” it.
Oops, got off track again. Higher compression engines, or turbo/supercharged engines are the most efficient. An 87 octane “regular”, or even 84 in some high altitude areas, is holding this back. Ethanol is a great octane booster that can enable higher compression engines, and that’s a good thing.
In case I wasn’t clear before, I still disagree with specific percentage mandates… but I also think engine damage is being exaggerated and economy losses are exaggerated. If the mandates were removed, the industry would still want to use Ethanol blends, but you could at least buy pure gas for your small motors and, um, legacy vehicles.
A. Scott said: “It absolutely can be transported by pipeline – all you need do is type “ethanol pipeline” into Google to completely disprove the claim it cannot. Ethanol pipelines are in service in many places, including a recent 16″ pipeline in New Jersey.”
However, ethanol and fuels containing ethanol cannot be transported vis multi-product pipelines as the cross-contamination of products such as jet fuel and diesel fuel will degrade the value and properties of these products. Plus ethanol containing fuels are sensitive to water contamination and will cause corrosion of iron pipe.
A recent finding by the Coordinating Research Council showed that minor contamination of diesel fuel with ethanol leads to corrosion of fuel systems and failure of equipment when bacterial conversion of ethanol to acetic acid occurs.
The best fuels for transportation use are hydrocarbon fuels as the energy content of these fuels cannot be matched with other fuels or technologies such as battery powre or hydrogen fuels.
CodeTech says: April 18, 2013 at 6:18 am
I have to admit, I’m still wondering where some of you are getting your carbureted cars. Does anyone still make them?
———————————————-
I have a street legal 2010 Yamaha TW200 motorcycle with a carburetor. It runs just fine on 87 Octane E10, which is the only gas you can buy in CA.
“And regarding emissions: an engine optimized for the lowest emissions will most likely be the most efficient, which means it makes good power and gets good mileage.”
————————————-
I respectfully disagree. Look at a BSFC map for just about any engine (2-stroke, 4-stroke, piston, Wankel, Diesel, etc). Maximum efficiency is about 3/4 open throttle and 1/3 of max RPM. Maximum power is at full throttle and 80% of max RPM. If you’re designing an engine for maximum power, you have lots of valve overlap, which does horrible things to emissions. Engine design has many tradeoffs.
There are countless drawbacks to ethanol, but the very first of these is the fact that one cannot recover near the energy from the finished product, that went into the making of it. It cannot be done with sugar cane, let alone with the much more demanding crop of maize. What is needed first of all is a suitable crop that requires no irrigation and thus no electricity, no nitrogen, very little labour, and after self-reaping, transports itself to the mill. You have to find this wonder plant before looking at the multitudinous lesser failings.
Ken, look at the latest on this (Stat 11 on page 13 of my link above and here again:
http://ethanolrfa.3cdn.net/8fabfbf8fbcb08d399_xom6injp6.pdf )
Things have improved enormously in this area.
There’s a move to start incorporating more grain sorghum into the mix (to allay some of the food vs. fuel “debate”, such as this thread), plus it’s more drought tolerant.
You are indeed correct though that ethanol has countless drawbacks, that start off with the difficulty of separating it from water.
Would rather have ethanol as the anti-smog additive than the stuff that was in there before, that went into the ground water and made it bitter tasting.
Dan in California, not arguing. However, motorcycles are not really part of the equation. They’re a significantly smaller percentage of the transportation fleet, and use considerably less fuel anyway. Here in Canada they’re only usable a few months of each year. But good point, and still reinforcing what I’m saying: mandates are not good… but if you had a supercharger on there I’m sure you’d be wanting higher octane fuel.
Oddly enough, I’m intimately familiar with engines. I completely rewrote the engine controller for my 87 Daytona Shelby Z, and a lot of people were using it. Those who used it in emission controlled locations were able to pass testing without a cat (although they often had to add a hollowed out cat for appearance). I also found numerous errors and bugs in Chrysler’s fueling equations, and of course the whole factory system runs intentionally rich for safety. Rather than empirically tuning with a wideband O2 sensor, my system allowed you to specify the A/F ratio at all levels of vacuum and boost. People who tested it on dynos found the desired A/F ratio exactly matched the actual, so it apparently worked. The fastest car using it ran 10.1 second quarters while still being streetable (although…. LOUD).
I know that the “flex fuel” concept was thought of in the 70s with early experiments in methanol, the beginnings were implemented in the 80s, and actual vehicles were out there in the early 90s. It was still possible to find them in the wreckers just a few years ago, with complete stainless steel fueling systems that dropped right into my 80s car.
When it comes to ECMs, any variations in fuel can be handled if you have some sort of sensor to determine the fuel makeup. These days such things are almost trivial, but 20 years ago, not so easy. Auto-adapting systems were crude at best, for example I couldn’t run my Daytona on 87 octane without audible ping. My 2008 Caliber SRT4 will run fine on 87, but definitely makes more power (and gets better mileage, even though there is more energy in the lower octane fuel) on 94. Then again, it also has variable valve timing on both intake and exhaust, which was scifi in the 80s.
My point is that technology advances regularly. There is no currently manufactured car/truck/suv that won’t happily consume E10 or E20, with less efficiency loss than an older vehicle. You mention 3/4 throttle at 1/3 RPM, which is about right. Turbo cars deliberately run extra rich at high boost to pull more heat out of the engine, thus spew unburned hyrdocarbons out the tail pipe, which is undesireable long term. But, that’s why the cats are there, to clean up after those excursions. My 2008 has an almost flat power curve all the way from 2000 to 6500, it’s insanely difficult to not bounce off the rev limiter because it never starts losing power.
By the way, I wanted to perform a similar modification to the 2008, but the computer is locked up tighter than a…. (insert simile here). As I understand it, we have the EPA to “thank” for that. So I’m stuck with an inefficient ECM that can’t reasonably be upgraded.
CodeTech says: April 19, 2013 at 5:12 am
Dan in California, not arguing. ……….. ]
—————————————————————————–
I think we are in violent agreement, and we’re having fun talking past each other. 🙂 And thank you, Anthony for providing the excellent forum. It’s very refreshing being able to disagree and back up arguments with facts.
Tom J says:
The internal components and the engine blocks themselves were not salvageable. Memo to people with common sense: This is not creative, capitalistic destruction. It’s simply destruction. (And, the talking heads wonder why the economy’s in the toilet.) And, memo to environmentalists: This is NOT good recycling policy either.
Along the same lines you have glass recycling in the UK. The “modern” method being “bottle banks” where used glass containers deposited subsequently ground into cullet and put into a furnace. One big problem is that unless the smashed glass can be separated by colour it cannot be used for the production of clear glass. Even though the bins typically come in a clear, green and brown group. A single 250ml green bottle in the clear bin could render it suitable for producing only green glass.
The “old fashioned” method of glass recycling is to return the bottle or jar to be reused. Possibly with a deposit to encourage this. This used to be common in the UK and is still used in other parts of Europe. (Even extended to plastic bottles.)
In French and Dutch supermarkets you will often find a machine which will take empty bottles and print out a coupon.
Mark:
At April 21, 2013 at 1:33 am you raise the issue of recycling.
I recognise that recycling is off-topic but there is an important consideration pertaining to mandates and subsidies which are part of this thread.
Recycling of metals is good. It costs much less energy, money and effort to recycle scrap metal than to mine and refine metal ores. Good profits are made from recycling metals.
But much recycling is a waste. It is only sustained by mandates and/or subsidies. An example of this is the glass recycling which you mention.
Glass is fused silica sand. There is no shortage of sand. And there is no problem with putting waste glass to landfill because it is not pollution to put sand in the ground.
Large amounts of sand can be moved from a single source to a plant which fuses it.
Or
Small amounts of waste glass can be moved to many collection points then moved from the collection points to a plant which re-fuses it.
It costs much less energy, money and effort to make glass from sand than to recycle waste glass. This is because collecting the sand costs much less than collecting waste glass and the disposal costs of waste glass do not negate the lesser cost of obtaining sand.
But glass is recycled because taxes are applied to waste glass which is put to landfill, and a proportion of glass production is mandated as being from waste glass. These taxes and mandates provide costs but no benefits.
The issue can be simplistically understood as follows.
Energy is the ability to do work.
Money is payment for work done.
So, if recycling uses less energy than production from a resource then it costs less money.
But, if recycling uses more energy than production from a resource then it costs more money.
Subsidies distort this because they distort the balance of monetary gains and losses. And this distortion also distorts profits because profits include costs, returns and subsidies.
This understanding is illustrated by vehicle recycling.
The metal from vehicles is valuable scrap, but the tyres from vehicles are unwanted waste. The metal scrap uses less energy than mining and refining metal ores. But separating the rubber and steel in tyres then converting them to useful resources uses more energy (i.e. costs more) than producing new steel and new rubber.
Tyres would be recycled if this were subsidised, and there could be reasons for such subsidy; e.g. disposal is so costly that tyres are dumped, and profitable recycling would avoid the polluting dumping. The subsidies may (n.b. MAY) be the cheapest solution to stopping the dumping.
In summation, recycling is good for some things but not others. And the costs and benefits of recycling are distorted by subsidies and mandates. Such distortion is usually an economic loss but in some special cases may be justifiable.
Richard