Winds of Change.NET: Mythbusting E85

February 5, 2007

Mythbusting E85

by Donald Sensing at February 5, 2007 10:29 PM

Note: I invite reader comment for this post and welcome fact and arithmetic checking. Just please stay civil!

E85 is a motor-vehicle fuel consisting of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline by volume. Pure ethanol’s ambient-temperature properties require it to be combined with gasoline to useful as a consumer fuel. Fifteen percent gasoline is the most common mixture.

There are two major drawbacks to using E85. George Will explains one:

Ethanol produces just slightly more energy than it takes to manufacture it. But now that the government is rigging energy markets with mandates, tariffs and subsidies, ethanol production might consume half of next year's corn crop. The price of corn already has doubled in a year. Hence the tortilla turbulence south of the border. Forests will be felled (will fewer trees mean more global warming?) to clear land for growing corn, which requires fertilizer, the manufacture of which requires energy. Oh, my.

In fact, I read not long ago (sorry, no link) in another article that it takes about one gallon of diesel fuel to produce one gallon of ethanol. Diesel is used in ethanol production to clear fields, produce and apply fertilizer, harvest the crop and transport and store it. Because processing the corn into ethanol requires electricity, diesel or some form of fuel oil is likely used to produce the electricity, too, since hydropower is the corn states is pretty rare. Further, E85 can't be piped except for short distances, certainly not state to state.

[A]n ethanol-gasoline mixture can't be piped, because the two ingredients separate, which could cause the fuel to damage a car's engine. Ethanol has to be transported on the road, a much more costly endeavor than sending it through a pipe. ... "'Corn is in the center of the country and gasoline consumers are on the coasts,' he [Dr. Darren Hudson, a professor of agricultural economics at Mississippi State University] said. 'So transportation costs can be quite high -- roughly double the cost of shipping gasoline' or about $1.20 per gallon of ethanol."

Transporting E85 will require diesel fuel and lots of it. That aside, replacing 109 ounces of gasoline per gallon with ethanol results in less usable energy than 128 ounces of of plain gasoline. Because of the inherent system costs of growing and transporting ethanol, simply comparing the fuel economy of flexible-fuel vehicles using ethanol with that of plain gasoline vehicles yields an incomplete, hence incorrect, answer of whether E85 is more efficient than plain gas. But it's still informative to compare the energy and economy of a gallon of gas with a gallon of E85 once they are in the consumer's fuel tank. Wikipedia reports,

E85 has an octane rating of 105, which is higher than typical commercial gasoline mixtures (octane ratings of 85 to 98); however, it does not burn as efficiently in traditionally-manufactured internal-combustion engines. Additionally, E85 contains less energy per volume as compared to gasoline. Although E85 contains only 72% of the energy on a gallon-for-gallon basis compared to gasoline, experimenters have seen slightly better fuel mileage than the 28% this difference in energy content implies. For example, recent tests by the National Renewable Energy Lab on fleet vehicles owned by the state of Ohio showed about a 25% reduction in mpg [1] (see table on pg 5) comparing E85 operation to reformulated gasoline in the same flexible fuel vehicle. Results compared against a gasoline-only vehicle were essentially the same, about a 25% reduction in volumetric fuel economy with E85.]]

Car and Driver magazine reports,

We did a comparison test of two fuels, regular gasoline (87 octane) and E85 (100 to 105 octane). Our test vehicle was a flex-fuel 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe 4WD LT powered by a 5.3-liter V-8 hooked to a four-speed automatic transmission.

Their result?

[T]he fuel economy on E85 was diminished more than 30 percent in two of the three tests, about what we expected. The EPA’s numbers suggest that fuel economy worsens by 28 percent on E85 compared with regular gas. On any Tahoe equipped with a 5.3-liter V-8, the E85 flex-fuel feature is a no-cost option, but running E85 reduces the driving range from roughly 390 miles a tank to about 290.

So why are automakers jumping feet first into producing E85-burning vehicles? Because for meeting federal CAFE standards, ' the government counts only the 15-percent gasoline content of E85."

"But," one may well respond, "the real meaasure for fuel efficiency as far as the consumer is concerned is not miles per gallon achieved, but the cost per mile driven." So, even if ethanol fuel does result in fewer miles per gallon, are those miles less costly each than those driven using only gasoline?

So far the outlook is poor. In the last year the price of gasoline at the pump has varied by at least a dollar per gallon across the country. I remember paying more than $3 per gallon about a year ago; last Friday I paid $1.99. Obviously, my fuel-cost per driven mile has dropped rather dramatically. But only last December, USA Today reported,

<p .The heavily promoted alcohol fuel called E85 might cut America's oil use and help support U.S. agriculture, but it's not reducing motorists' fuel bills. It's boosting them significantly. The price of E85 — a fuel that's 85% ethanol made from grain and 15% conventional gasoline — is higher than that of gasoline, even though E85 has only 72% as much energy. The U.S. Department of Energy says a vehicle has to use 1.4 times as much E85 as gasoline to go the same distance.

The article goes on to say that just to break even for energy value to the consumer, E85 has to sell for 72 percent or less of the cost of a gallon of gas at the present price range for gas. Of course, if the price of gasoline rises back to the $3 range, that is by about 50 percent, it does not mean that the price of ethanol would also rise by 50 percent. It might rise only proportional to the 15 percent gasoline content of ethanol. Or it might keep proportional pace with gasoline's price simply because fuel companies want to manximize profits rather than simply sell cheap fuel. We don't know because not enough ethanol-fueled vehicles are on the road yet and there are not all that many stations selling E85.

But there are other dynamics at play that explain the second great drawback to relying on E85. Let us suppose that the economies of E85 come to make it desirable for the consumer (it won't happen, about which more later, but play along). In fact, let us imagine that every gallon of plain gasoline used today can be economically replaced with E85. Then what happens?

The price of gasoline simply plummets, that's what, and it becomes again the far more preferable fuel for consumers because of its price. One may object that oil companies will reduce the amount of gasoline they refine. The obvious question is why oil companies would do that, since it means surrendering the greatest market in the country to Big Agribusiness. However, that question really doesn't enter the equation because refineries produce gasoline from oil no matter what.

I called the American Petroleum Institute and spoke with Mr. Ron Planting, a statistician. He pointed me to a web page of the Energy Information Administration with lots of useful data. In 2005, a 42-gallon barrel of raw petroleum was refined to yield 19.4 gallons of finished motor gasoline. According to Mr. Planting, the amount of gasoline refined from oil depends mostly upon the design of the refinery. In fact, the US imported 1.2 million gallons of gasoline per day last year because some other countries, especially in Europe, have emphasized using diesel fuels in autos and industry and therefore refine more gasoline than they can use domestically. In the US, some small refineries in Louisiana and Arkansas refined only 22 percent of a barrel of oil to gasoline (9.24 gallons) while in New Mexico the conversion was 56 percent. Again, varying the amount of gasoline that can be produced from raw petroleum is mostly a function of refinery design.

How much money would it take to convert American refineries to produce less gasoline? I have no idea, but I can't imagine it would be cheap. Mr. Planting said that the main thrust of American refineries is producing gasoline, so conversion would be no small job. The question is also begged as to what interest the oil industry has in killing its cash cow, gasoline, and surrendering the motor-fuel market to Big Agribusiness.

We are presently refining raw oil to about 46 percent (rounded) gasoline. If E85 ever achieves very high market saturation, the demand for non-gasoline products will determine how much petroleum we need to use, including imported petroleum. Consequently, the amount of petroleum we need to use to produce non-gasoline products will also largely determine how much gasoline is produced. In June 2006, according to an API fact sheet, oil companies shipped an average of 9,581,000 barrels of gasoline per day (403 million gallons - that's a lot of of gas!). More gasoline by volume is shipped to retailers than any other petroleum product.

The second largest amount of refined product by volume from a barrel of oil is distillate fuel oil, mainly diesel and heating oils, of which there is a 25 percent conversion rate per refined barrel, or 10.5 gallons.

Continuing with our thought experiment, let us suppose that we totally converted all gasoline usage to E85, reducing the need for gasoline from 9.6 million barrels per day to 1,437,000. This amount requires refining 3.12 millions barrels of oil, since 46 percent of a barrel is refined to gasoline. Would that meet the demand for fuel oils? No. In June 2006, the industry shipped 4,009,000 barrels of "distillate fuel oil (home heating and diesel)." Since a barrel of refined petroleum yields only 10.5 gallons of fuel oil, meeting the daily demand for fuel oils alone requires refining 16 million barrels of petroleum. That is about five million fewer barrels per day than we are now using. I infer from what Mr. Planting said that refineries could be redesigned to produce more fuel oil and less gasoline per barrel of petroleum, but unless there is a market demand for the adjusted amounts, there's no reason to do it.

Increasing the use of E85 would decrease the need for gasoline, but that doesn't mean that the demand for fuel oils would rise to take up the slack in a refiner's bottom line. It certainly does not mean that the demand for fuel oils would decrease! So no matter how much E85 we used, we'd still need 16 million barrels of oil per day to meet the demand for distillate fuel oils. That amount of oil would yield 7.36 millions barrels of gasoline at 2006's 46-percent refining rate, or 309 million gallons.

Could we replace today's 403 million g/d usage of pure gasoline with 309 million gallons of gas by using a lot of E85? It's a 94 million gallon shortfall. Let's see:

Making 94 million gallons of E85 requires 14.1 millions gallons of gasoline. After making the E85 there would be 294.9 millions gallons of pure gasoline left. Add that to the 94m gallons of E85, and we'd have 388.9 million gallons of fuel, 14.1 million gallons short of the 403 m. gallons required. Making up that difference in E85 will take another 2.1m gallons of gasoline, or 311.1 million gallons . (These are all daily figures.) I am guessing, based on my readings and what Mr. Planting told me, that American refineries could adjust to make that much more gas from 16m barrels without a great deal of expense.

But those 108 million gallons of E85 are 25 percent less efficient in motor vehicles than gasoline, meaning that we'd have to produce not 108 m. gallons of E85 for the same energy yield, but 135 million gallons. And that would require refining yet another 20 million gallons of gas. At a 46 percent conversion, another 20 million gallons of gas will require another million barrels of oil, yielding a reduction of oil requirements not of five million but of four, or 17 million barrels per day.

Okay, reducing our oil usage by four million barrels per day ain't chicken feed. But my calculations do show, I think, that E85 is not the panacea it's being made to be. Consider that a total conversion from pure gasoline to E85 means that we'd wind up with a daily surplus of millions of barrels of gasoline per day. Then gasoline's price would be about a dime a gallon, completely annihilating the financial incentive to use E85. The same economic forces would be in play well short of total conversion to E85, of course. So what is the upshot of all this?

1. The market will determine the saturation of E85 usage. Unless consumers can realize real monetary savings by switching to E85, widespread use of the fuel won't occur. But the total system costs of producing E85 obviates against it becoming financially advantageous to the average consumer over gasoline.

2. At best, using E85 can reduce our total petroleum requirements by 20 percent, not insignificant by any means, but not near enough to reduce our need for enormous amounts of imported oil. It would also give us potentially huge surpluses of refined gasoline, driving the price of gas down and even further removing the financial incentive for consumers to use E85.

Therefore, don't see E85 as a realistic substitute for gasoline.

And by the way, E85 is more polluting than plain gasoline.

Printer-friendly Version

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.windsofchange.net/windsopcentre-cms/trackback.cgi/7082

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference
"Mythbusting E85"

Comments

#1 from Engineer-Poet at 11:33 pm on Feb 05, 2007

You have a number of errors and half-truths in the above:

Ethanol has to be transported on the road, a much more costly endeavor than sending it through a pipe. Half-true. Only anhydrous ethanol can be blended with gasoline, and the water in petroleum pipelines will render ethanol un-blendable. However, hydrous ethanol makes a perfectly good motor fuel by itself; it just can't be mixed in the same tank as gasoline.
Substituting ethanol is a problem for refineries.

False. Refineries use catalytic and thermal crackers to turn heavier crude components into lighter molecules for gasoline. The solution: don't crack the crude as much, leaving more as distillate. Or just use some of the ethanol to power heavy vehicles (the high octane allows it to be carbureted into the intake air of diesels and ignited with a "pilot injection" of oil).
Ethanol lowers the efficiency of gasoline engines. Mostly true. This applies to E85, which has to be miscible with gasoline and run through the same fuel system. However, a two-tank system using ethanol and gasoline separately can boost ethanol usage during high-power operation, increasing the octane rating and allowing higher compression. This in turn allows the engine to be turbocharged to roughly double normal output, allowing the engine size to be cut in half for the same power. According to a Ford/MIT study, a smaller turbo engine would boost fuel economy by about 30% over a normally-aspirated engine of the same output.

The Ford/MIT concept assumes a small ethanol tank used only for high-power operation, but there is no reason that it could not burn almost any desired proportion of ethanol. It would only require gasoline for cold starting. The separation of the ethanol and gasoline fuel systems would eliminate the evaporative emissions problems, blending problems and pipeline shipment problems while boosting efficiency.

The carmakers' excuse for the SUV phenomenon is that CAFE regulations don't allow them to build the big cars Americans love. On the other hand, an ethanol-boosted turbo 4 could turn a 22 MPG station wagon into a 28.6 MPG car - over the CAFE average. The replacement of 15-MPG trucks by cars getting nearly 30 MPG would slash gasoline consumption and oil imports.

#2 from Engineer-Poet at 11:35 pm on Feb 05, 2007

It is to WOC's shame that it does not give users a preview.

#3 from Bruno at 11:37 pm on Feb 05, 2007

Just a quick comment, The type of corn the Mexicans use for their tortillas (white corn) is grown solely on Mexico, so I'm unsure about the impact the higher corn prices in the US have on tortilla prices.

#4 from InJapan at 11:45 pm on Feb 05, 2007

Wow, that is a lot of numbers...

Have you seen Rober Rapier's blog site: http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/
He is a chemical engineer who has been debating about Ethanol with Vinod Khosla, the latter a strong supporter or some as of yet unavailable process for making more ethanol than currently via corn.

From all my reading it seems like you have the gist of the issue: the energy returned in making Ethanol fuels (as currently done in the USA) is not much more, if at all, the energy expended to make (and distribute) it. Thus there is not much of a gain.

In order to make ethanol work as an oil substitute we'd have to import from Brazil, which makes ethanol from sugar cane. However, and how convenient for American farmers.... there is a tariff of the stuff from Brazil!

The next technological leap in alcohol as fuels will come from the not-yet-available 'cellulosic' methods... that may never come.

I'm all for finding (and funding) alternative fuels, but workable solutions still seem far off.

BTW, I'm glad to see you take up this topic. For way too long the energy issues discussions have been dominated by rather radical voices on the web, and it is good to see more middle of the road, or even conservative, commentors start to embrace the energy issue.

If Bill Clinton's famous axiom "It's about the economy, stupid" is true, then consider that the "economy" is about energy, and it always has been. From the use of fire, to slaves and oxen, to sails and windmills, then to the industrial revolution (coal and oil), the economy (how we meet our individual and collective needs) has been about finding and managing new energy resources.

#5 from Bruno at 11:48 pm on Feb 05, 2007

In Brazil much of the energy needed to produce (but not transport) ethanol is generated from sugarcane pulp waste, so it is actually quite energy-efficient. For drivers, the cost per kilometer is lower than gasoline, but higher than natural gas.

Corn-based ethanol in the US must rely on subsidies and import tarifs to compete with sugarcane ethanol. The problem is that the US must decide whether its renewable fuel policy is about corporate welfare or its long-term strategic goals. In the latter case, both forms of ethanol must be allowed to compete freely, to determine once and for all if corn-based ethanol is economically viable or not.

#6 from Engineer-Poet at 11:51 pm on Feb 05, 2007

And while I'm here, a couple more facts:

Ethanol cannot replace gasoline, even if we can get it from switchgrass and corn stalks; we simply cannot grow enough biomass to do the job.
The primary purpose of ethanol programs is agricultural price supports.

#7 from Beard at 12:14 am on Feb 06, 2007

This argument that E85 (and perhaps other) ethanol use does not decrease our (USA) system-wide oil consumption is pretty compelling. The obvious conclusion is that it therefore does not further our strategic goals, which presumably are to decrease our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

Which goals does it further, in that case? Like the man said, follow the money.

It looks like the huge money from this change will be made by giant agribusiness corporations, without the giant oil corporations taking a major hit.

But if this huge economic change is happening, with major implications for consumers (negative) and agribusiness corporations (positive), but without improving our strategic situation, why exactly should we be doing it?

Not to be cynical or anything . . .

#8 from Donald Sensing at 12:28 am on Feb 06, 2007

Poet, #1,

I don't think I ever said that "Substituting ethanol is a problem for refineries," I did say that our refineries are presently designed to produce fairly high-octane gasoline. Yes, you can change the refining process to lower the amount of gasoline produced, but according to the API spokesman, refining to make less gasoline also reduces the octane rating of the gas produced, at least if you want to make substantially less gas. But, as I pointed out, there's no business incentive for refiners to do that.

Hydrous alcohol may well be a fuel by itself, but what is its efficiency compared to gasoline?

#9 from Mrs. Davis at 12:54 am on Feb 06, 2007

A member of the local state department of agriculture said this will be adding a third F to their portfolio, Food Fiber and Fuel.

#10 from Beard at 1:47 am on Feb 06, 2007

Mrs. Davis [#9],

From the portfolio point of view, that's certainly a good thing. We need to be capturing more of our energy from what is coming in from the sun every day, and that's what biofuels do. Digging oil (or even coal) out of the ground is using up irreplaceable capital. (I almost said "eating our seed corn", but in context, that gets a bit twisty.)

The problem comes from the whole-system point of view. If it takes a gallon of gasoline to manufacture and ship a gallon of ethanol, and you get less energy, then you are not coming out ahead. You are not actually benefitting from the energy captured from the sun.

Perhaps there are other biofuel approaches that do meet our strategic needs, but this particular one may have a significant flaw. (I say "may" because I haven't studied the issue myself, but to first reading these arguments seem persuasive.)

#11 from Joshua at 2:08 am on Feb 06, 2007

Even if the overall net energy-efficiency of E85 vs. gasoline is a wash, there is, of course, one other benefit to E85: We won't have to depend upon potentially - or in a few cases actually - hostile and/or unstable foreign countries for the bulk of our supply. (Unless, of course, the Saudis, Chinese and others are shrewd enough to invest heavily in U.S. domestic agribusiness.)

#12 from Engineer-Poet at 3:40 am on Feb 06, 2007

Making less gasoline means making lower octane? And ethanol is an octane booster. Hmmm.... (not that I haven't spent plenty of time taking the ethanol lobby to task [google "ethanol lobby" and I'm the #1 hit] but I'm not going to ignore the nuances in this matter either).

Ethanol is, as you noted, a very high octane fuel. It can sustain very high compression without knocking. If you actually use that capability, you can run an engine at the optimal compression ratio and get the best possible efficiency out of it. (Saab appears to be doing something like this.) If you get that compression with turbocharging, you can downsize the engine and reduce friction losses; this increases efficiency further.

Do not get me wrong. I do not think ethanol is "the answer". Neither is hydrogen. I've done the numbers and everything I know says that the "electron economy" is the clear winner in the future energy contest. But there are uses where batteries don't have the lightness or endurance required, and the energy density of a liquid fuel outweighs the expense of making it. This is where alcohols and biodiesel are going to find their niche: not as star players, but as a strong second-string team.

Where are we going to get the alcohols and biodiesel? It looks easiest to get the required carbohydrates and veggie oils from single-celled algae. We can feed the algae on any handy source of CO2. I spent about 8500 words on that subject a couple months ago; my essay Sustainability, energy independence and agricultural policy made a little stir.

#13 from Dave at 3:41 am on Feb 06, 2007

If we were going to go and convert much of the country to e85, we wouldn't just rely on moving the mixed fuel by truck.

We would have to create another set of pipes, going from ethanol producing areas to petroleum local distribution centers - from which, gasoline is already tanked away. 95k miles of pipes - what, $900b? Of course, the alternative is a massive amount of rail based transport for said ethanol. The dangerous, flaming, might-as-well-put-a-target on it ethanol.
http://www.pipeline101.com/Overview/products-pl.html

Seriously though - each American uses roughly 240 barrels of oil every year. A car driven for 15k miles a year @ 20 MPG uses 750 gallons of gas, or roughly 38 barrels. Most of the rest? Goes to moving around food, and other raw materials used for industry. A more efficient rail and heavy transportation system would do more to help us than e85 could.

#14 from Robin Goodfellow at 6:12 am on Feb 06, 2007

Ethanol as a fuel is one of the biggest boondoggles of our times. At best the benefit to the environment in regards to CO2 production is dubious. On the whole the environmental impact is almost assuredly detrimental, due to natural habitat loss. Which is not even to address the impact on food markets.

On the whole it's a testament to the power of Archer-Daniels-Midland's lobbyists and the gullibility and scientific illiteracy of many of those who call themselves environmentalists.

#15 from Gabriel at 5:03 pm on Feb 06, 2007

E85 is the new penny.

#16 from GoatGuy at 5:41 pm on Feb 06, 2007

Scientific boondoggles?

It is amazing to this old goat to see the "traction" that a false premise - oft repeated - has generated.

The premise is of course that humans are profoundly impacting the weather of the planet toward a 1,000 year long greenhouse-like warm period ... where the oceans will rise, deserts expand, ice caps melt, giant hurricanes innundate the (now-swamped?) coastal low-lands, and I suppose somehow tsunamis and meteor strikes somehow figure into it.

The premise has awakened the largely somniferant Old Hippy Greenie-that-Votes-by-Gawd! And the politicians have awakened to an almost compelling truth: if the old greenies, and the new greenies (Gen Y) are all clamoring to Save The Earth, and if the Democrats in particular, the Europeans in General, the UN quite specifically and the South/Central Americans somewhat anomalously are behind it ... well, maybe the political party sitting on the head of the raging bull can at least say it is RESPONSIBLE for steering such a noble beast in the general direction that the voting public wants.

So now we have E85. The UberGreen fuel, that is [ahem] not very green.

I always - as a chemical engineer and couch potato physicist - am amused when it is said that "1 gallon of diesel is required to produce 1 gallon of Ethanol!"

Now what kind of logic is that? That somehow diesel - as a fuel! - is specifically required to produce ethanol? Hardly. It is more fair to say (if it were true) that 1 unit of ethanalic energy can be produced by the investment of 1 unit of energy from any of a variety of sources.

But that isn't a very compelling argument. It kind of falls down on itself to even the most mathematically challenged Greenie. Um... we have to BURN a gallon of what old Gunther produced over there, so that we can MAKE one gallon of our own hooch ... to sell to Gunther? Amos, I don't think we're making much money here!!!

As the Archer Daniels Midland argument goes above, the whole political clap-trap is to raise prices for grains, give artificial demand to a bumper surplus that no one rightfully thought could be produced endlessly by our country. And there's the rub, isn't it.

Ultimately, there is a lot of political interest in keeping Middle America well ... working. Tol'ably prosperous, tol'ably happy, voting for the good old boys, and kind of muddling through life watching the weather and buying John Deere wee-heavy equipment.

I think there's a bigger issue though, and one that really should be looked at more closely: if Brazil IS able (and they are) to supply something like 80% of their automotive transport needs through fermented sugarcane, and its distillates fired by the waste fiber of the process ... then try me again. Why aren't we subsidizing vast tracts of sugar-cane or other sugar-bearing, hyper-efficient plant down south where (with global warming, don't you know) frosts are all but unheard of, water is plentiful, and the growing conditions are at least as good as someplace in Brazil? I don't get it. Oh, but I do - it is again about price fixing by artificial demand.

Truely, we are going to have to get past our "carbon diet" at some point - either by really coming up with a more efficient way of making bio-fuels, or by tapping some other renewable (AKA "solar") reserve, and figuring out how to store the stuff effectively, portably. After all, no matter WHAT we think, just like the gold in California, the copper in Michigan, the silver in Nevada, the oil in Texas, and the petroleum in Pennsylvania ... eventually vast resources run out. And what, the Saudis and Kuwaitis and Bahrainis and Iraqis are sitting on top of the perpetual Font of oleoresin? I think not. Even their profound puddles will slow, become watery and relatively too expensive to tap for the remaining energies they hold.

So yah, let's go bio and solar and hydro and geo, boyz'n'grrlz. But let's do so using tech that energeticaly makes sense, as if we MEAN IT, not just because ADM is making a killing from it.

#17 from PD Shaw at 5:48 pm on Feb 06, 2007

I would mildly disagree with the assertion that the market will ultimately determine E85's fate. There are probably no sectors of the economy more subject to government manipulation than agriculture and energy. Ethanol just happens to be at the intersection of both.

The U.S. government imposes a 54-cents-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol. As noted earlier, the U.S. also imposes stiff tariffs on sugar cane. These are not the hallmarks of a policy geared towards replacing gas with ethanol. Agricultural policy is about balance of trade.

The petro industry gets its own subsidies and tax advantages. According to this "2000 study (pdf),": http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/131/gao.pdf the tax incentives for petroleum since 1968 dwarf those given ethanol (although a chunk of this has to do with the fact that petro subsidies began earlier). House Democrats are proposing a bill to raise more than $10 billion by repealing half a dozen tax incentives passed since 2000. These tax advantages are justified as a means of cutting our dependence on foreign oil.

As long as the chief goal of our agricultural / energy policy is trade, then ethanol should continue to get the lion's share of government supports and tax breaks.

#18 from Engineer-Poet at 6:01 pm on Feb 06, 2007

What PD Shaw said. Also:

Why aren't we subsidizing vast tracts of sugar-cane or other sugar-bearing, hyper-efficient plant down south where (with global warming, don't you know) frosts are all but unheard of, water is plentiful, and the growing conditions are at least as good as someplace in Brazil?

Because our conditions are not that good, or we wouldn't have required tariffs against imported sugar to keep our own cane and beet farmers in business.

Also, Brazil's independence is 10% ethanol and 90% Petrobras. If the USA cut our per-capita oil consumption down to the level of Brazil, we'd be an oil exporter again.

#19 from Gramarye at 12:32 am on Feb 07, 2007

The figures for ethanol do look somewhat bleak, but I think that ethanol will be a temporary fix, anyway. I have a feeling that electric cars (of this snazzy variety, not this decidedly uncool piece of junk) will be the wave of the future; as

#20 from Gramarye at 12:33 am on Feb 07, 2007

#21 from Gramarye at 12:34 am on Feb 07, 2007

Obviously, I agree that we need to diversify our energy supply. One of the foremost principles that led me to found Tesla Motors was that (as General Motors Chief Executive Rick Wagoner noted in his opening remarks at the LA Auto Show), electric cars move our choice of energy source upstream from the vehicle, making them the ultimate multi-fuel vehicles: You can power them with clean (or dirty) coal; wind or solar power; clean, safe (or otherwise) nuclear energy; or even good ol� oil.

Admittedly, our demands for petroleum flow from more than just transportation, but transportation is the most critical sector, the sector that is the most dependent on petroleum--or ethanol--for its existence, and which drives (no pun intended) both our current dependence on oil and our mission to extricate ourselves from that dependence. Everyone is talking about alternative fuels; no one is talking about alternative lubricants or polymers.

I believe ethanol will, realistically, only be around until electric car technology matures, which may be much sooner than people are anticipating. The news is spreading, though; Google News "Tesla Roadster" and you'll find some articles about competitors already gearing up.

P.S. I am so sorry about the triple post, and I second what was said earlier about the preview feature.

#22 from Fletcher Christian at 12:20 pm on Feb 07, 2007

So the alternatives seem to be importing enormous quantities of either sugar or sugar-derived ethanol from Brazil, or importing enormous quantities of oil from the Middle East?

I don't see the difference in terms of the American balance of payments. Of course, there is another, non-economic difference in the two policies. One is to export American money to the land of salsa and rumba; the other is to export it to the land of burqas, stonings, bombings and beheadings.

Which is preferable? Hmmm, difficult one, that...

#23 from J Aguilar at 1:20 pm on Feb 07, 2007

Fletcher Christian (#22)

I agree, ethanol might in the end simply be a way of reducing some points the financing of our enemies.

I think nuclear energy is the future, both for power generation, but also for hidrogen production through thermochemical cycles. Once you got that hidrogen, you may sintetize gasoline from coal if you wish (to avoid financing the enemy).

I don't see an electrical 747.

#24 from Ian Campbell at 6:46 pm on Feb 07, 2007

J Aguilar:

Actually, I at least partly disagree. I consider giving Western money to salsa dancers infinitely preferable to giving it to jihadists. But there is no quick fix, really none.

The answer is going to involve engineering on a gigantic scale and on the very small, and some major changes in attitudes, and there are going to be very big winners and losers.

Some ideas short of gigantic; district power and heating schemes, power-generating garbage incinerators, thermal depolymerisation, biomass ethanol and biodiesel, incentives for installation of insulation and draughtproofing, legislation on improving the thermal efficiency of new buildings (example; limiting the permissible size of windows in south-facing walls in the Northern hemisphere), more efficient cars, increasing use of ship, canal and rail transport, even incentives for installing more efficient boilers, aircon and refrigerators.

Some big ideas; nuclear power (of course), ocean thermal, geothermal, tide and wave power, fusion (not magnetic confinement, maybe electrostatic), and of course the real elephant in the room, space solar power.

Non-starters; wind (anywhere), solar (almost anywhere), hydro (what can be used is being used already).

Can anyone here think of any other ideas? Of course we can. The real issue is to defeat entrenched power bases, not to think of solutions.

Do we really need to do anything? Maybe not - but it's a gamble. The odds may not be too bad, but I don't like the size of the pot.

For an extreme example of the possible consequences, just look at Earth's ugly twin.

#25 from J Aguilar at 8:47 pm on Feb 07, 2007

IMHO today there is nothing like an EPWR which yields 1600 MW electrical from a single unit. There is nothing so efficient with so much power, so available and so environmentaly friendly.

For one point of improved efficiency in such units (for instance, evolving to a supercritical thermodinamic cycle or to superconductors), you got 16,000 kW watts or the consuption of around 3,000 homes, tell me how much interventionist legislation you need to get such a saving!

In addition, rejected heat can be employed for heating in cold countries (even heating of crops) and water desalinization in dry ones, increasing the total efficiency of such units.

There is nothing as safe (fewer deaths per GWh produced), efficient and environmentaly friendly that nuclear energy. That is the truth.

The only problem of nuclear energy is that you cannot pump it in your car.

But there is a scientific breakthrough named thermochemical cycle to produce hydrogen from the heat of a nuclear reaction. That opens new possibilities. Moreover if you take into account the future has to be fusion power. You may not like magnetic confinement, but there is experimental data that (confinement mode H) points out that the ITER will reach ignition conditions. Therefore, to get it is no longer the problem, but to keep it runing.

In addition, in a very long term it would be possible to obtain electricty directly from a fusion reactor, without an inefficient thermodinamic cycle.

There is nothing like nuclear power. Wind energy is for most locations uncompetitive, solar, if you move the panels, interventionist legislation (a big window to the south is optimal for winter, BTW), well...; bioethanol, agricultural financial assistance; oil (at least in Europe), terror financial assistance, Natural gas (in most of Europe), KGB financial assistance...

You decide.

#26 from Fletcher Christian at 4:38 pm on Feb 08, 2007

Some interesting arguments here. On the subject of big windows; well, there has to be a reason why traditional architecture in most hot countries involves massive walls and small windows. At the very least, there is glass available at very small additional cost that drastically reduces heat transmission; maybe this stuff ought to be compulsory for new glass installations.

Nuclear power is the only way of getting the job done in the short term, I agree. As for some of the other stuff; well, in my humble opinion dedicated production of bioethanol crops is the wrong way to go. But most agricultural production involves the creation of vast quantities of cellulose as a byproduct, and there are some organisms capable of digesting the stuff, so maybe some work is needed there?

Alternative power production? Well, solar has some of the same problems as wind, the first being that it is unavailable at least half the time, but the main one being low power density. If nothing else, a realistic size plant would take serious work keeping the collectors clean! (More sun, more dust, on the whole.)

Fusion power as currently envisaged has two main problems; we aren't sure it works, and the installations have to be too damned big! On the other hand, electrostatic confinement fusion is already in use as a neutron source, if not for power, and the "installations" are the size of a small wastepaper bin. Doing some serious work on this ought to produce some results, and the radiation problem is soluble by using a different fuel; for example I believe He3 produces He4 and 2 energetic protons - which can be directly captured and the energy used, for the simple reason that protons are charged.

I really believe that this isn't being pursued because the installations are so small; a domestic or vehicular fusion reactor is conceivable - Mr. Fusion from Back to the Future II here we come! This would cause massive disruption of the economy and the near-total collapse of the oil industry, and none of the powers that be want either.

The real long-term solution, in my opinion, will involve using the nearest fusion we know works, and in such a way that dirty collectors aren't a problem. With enough resources to plate the USA an inch deep in platinum as a rather useful byproduct.

#27 from J Aguilar at 9:39 am on Feb 09, 2007

there has to be a reason why traditional architecture in most hot countries involves massive walls and small windows.

Sure, there was one: lack of structural elements that could withstand traction. The entire building was supported by the external walls and no big hole could or should be done on them.

In fact a big window pointing to the East-Northeast (at latitude 40� aprox.) is energetically very efficient. Also a big window pointing South it is, if you carefully add a peak that cast a shadow over it on the summer days.

I agree on solar panels. I think crops will have the same problem even if some enzimatic method to descompose such cellulosic residues is developed.

The Farnsworth fusor
had already been studied in the 1960's. It was also though then that fusion was something very simple, something as get plasma (the flashy thing you can see in an electrical fault) and keep it heating (usually making a current circulate through it). However, even though the temperatures achieved were high, the confinement times were very low. The scientifics had discovered the concept of plasma instability, and they have developed theories to tame it that have been confirmed in the last 40 years. The discovery of the H (High) mode was a breakthrough because beyond a certain point, the plasma losses fewer energy than was originally thought (thus heating faster). I mean, there is a lot of theoretical and experimental data behind it, facts on which the public opinion is usually unaware.

I disagree, the truly fusion method that has happened to work is magnetic confinement, yielding 10 MW of thermonuclear power. Of course, other inertial methods might have been secretly developed in the US (they are related with the development of a Hydrogen bomb), but as far we know, ITER, simply for its size and the use of superconductors, may generate 500 MW of thermonuclear power, ten times more than the heating power absorbed, being the ultimate fusion machine, unmatched by any other.

And I disagree again. Big units are far more cost-efficient than smaller ones, that is well proven.

I think that during all this Oil Age, we are in the hands of terrorists, caribbean dictatorships, KGB mafiosi and many other scoundrels waving miraculous solutions to sell subsidized energy. Sooner or later the developed world will have to declare their independece from all of them.

#28 from Fletcher Christian at 1:19 pm on Feb 10, 2007

I wasn't advocating the growing of crops specifically for cellulose production. I was advocating the use of agricultural byproducts such as straw. It isn't much perhaps, but every little helps.

Fusion: It appears that the Farnsworth fusor has been well and truly superseded. Link:
Bussard Fusion Project

It is perhaps the case that the bigger the better as far as efficiency is concerned. But the scale of the comparison varies immensely. It looks as if a tokamak or other magnetic confinement fusion plant has to be an enormous installation in order to work at all, whereas an electrostatic one might work, albeit inefficiently, in a unit about the size of a large closet. Therefore, a house-sized unit ought to be about enough to get it working at maximum efficiency.

Another point here; increased efficiency is not necessarily the only consideration. I consider that each house having its own generating plant is a worthwhile goal, counteracting the strong tendency towards centralisation in most societies. On the other hand, generating facilities the size of a ten-storey building perpetuate the growth of mammoth bureaucracies and dependence on them. Domestic generators also remove the need for the infrastructure of power lines and so on.

In any case, when you are dealing with something with the energy density of fusion fuel, efficiency becomes rather less important.

Wouldn't you like to be able to tell the electricity company to go screw itself?

Incidentally, the Bussard fusion project also holds out the prospect of a working fusion rocket motor. Possibly even the interstellar ramjet for which Bussard is famous. The Solar System and maybe later the stars, all for a couple of hundred million - sounds like quite a bargain!

Of course the military-industrial complex, and Bush's oil company buddies, will do their best to make sure this concept is stillborn. In fact, they are already a good part of the way towards that goal.

#29 from J Aguilar at 4:57 pm on Feb 10, 2007

Well, I personally like this other American company. I think the science behind it is much clearer and it seems to have wider support of your government, so maybe we both agree.

By the way, last year they made a breakthrough discovery that will enable ITER to operate longer without suffering erosion in the internal walls of the reactor chamber.

This company gently provides a brochure on "magnetic confined fusion":
http://fusion.gat.com/Brochures_posters_movies/ITER_Brochure.pdf. You can see a prototype of a divertor, a key element needed to remove the helium produced and keep the plasma burning without impurities.

I mean, there is a lot of science and experience behind nuclear fusion. It is not something about fiction. It would already have reached in a competitive way, if equipment was not so incredible expensive (therefore, it is just a matter of money).

Wouldn't you like to be able to tell the electricity company to go screw itself?

The feeling would be mutual. EPCOs prefer big clients: a lot of power, just one line (no distribution).

I don't know what Bush does. In my country, it is said that journalists are paid by Saudi Arabia, not only to get a bias on the Arab-Israeli conflict, but also on energy issues (well, we now have internet, and we can say all of them "go screw yourselves"), but I cannot see the science behind that kind of improved Farnsworth fusor.

Going back to the main issue of the post, I cannot see either low density energy sources (solar, wind, crops...) making any big impact on the energy market (what I SEE is them making a really big impact in someone's pockets through financial assistance from the governments). The future will be nuclear, which I don't think it means that oil will be completely substitued, but only partially.