Ethanol: A Tragedy in 3 Acts - Tuner-Junction

njn63 · #1 (**permalink**) May 9th, 2006, 03:25 AM

BusinessWeek Online Link

Ethanol: A Tragedy in 3 Acts
Amid the current panic about gas prices many people are embracing ethanol. But that's not such a good idea

Quote:

During the comment period for the RFG (reformulated gas) program, supporters of ethanol had argued that the volatile organic compound (VOC) emission standards in the program -- 42 U. S. C. 7545 (k) (3) (B) (i) -- would preclude the use of ethanol in RFG because adding ethanol to gasoline increases its volatility and raises VOC emissions, especially in the summertime.

Background
The American Petroleum Institute v. the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Docket #94-1502 (Heard by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and decided on April 28, 1995)]

If there were ever a time when the truth in advertising standards should be put back into place, it's now -- during the current (third) attempt to convince the public that the massive use of corn-derived ethanol in our gasoline supply will alleviate our need for foreign oil. Ultimately, the answer to just one question determines ethanol's actual usefulness as a gasoline extender: "If the government hadn't mandated this product, would it survive in a free market?" Doubtful -- but the misinformation superhighway has been rerouted to convince the public its energy salvation is at hand.

Act I, Scenes 1 and 2
The use of ethanol to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is nothing new. We also considered it during our nation's Project Independence in 1974, the year after the first Arab oil embargo. After the second energy crisis in 1979, an income tax credit of 40 cents per gallon of 190-proof ethanol produced was instituted as an incentive for refiners of ethanol to blend this product into gasoline.

Because this federal largesse now existed, within five years, 163 ethanol plants had been built -- but only 74 of them were still in operation. As gasoline availability opened up in the 1980s and gas prices went down, many ethanol plants simply went out of business.

Shortly thereafter, in yet another attempt to broaden the product's usage, Congress enacted a law that allowed car manufacturers to take excess mileage credits on any vehicle they built that was capable of burning an 85% blend of ethanol, better known as E85. General Motors (GM) took advantage of the credits, building relatively large volumes of the Suburban as a certified E85 vehicle. Although in real life that generation of the Suburban got less than 15 mpg, the credits it earned GM against its Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) ratings meant that on paper, the Suburban delivered more than 29 mpg.

Other manufacturers also built E85-capable vehicles -- one such car was the Ford (F) Taurus. Congress may have intended simply to create a market for this particular fuel by having these vehicles available for sale. But what the excess mileage credits actually did was save Detroit millions each year in penalties it would have owed for not meeting the CAFE regulations' mileage standards.

Act II, Scenes 1 and 2
In the mid-'90s the Clean Air Act of 1990 kicked in, mandating that a reformulated gasoline be sold in the nation's smoggiest cities. So the Clinton Administration again tried to create an ethanol industry in America, by having the Environmental Protection Agency mandate that fully 30% of the oxygenates to be used in gasoline under that program come from a renewable source. But members of the American Petroleum Institute had already geared up for the production of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), their oxygenate of choice. The ensuing lawsuit was argued before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on February 16, 1995.

The EPA took the position that it had been given a mandate to find ways to conserve the nation's fossil-fuel reserves, so it needed a renewable fuel -- and ethanol neatly fit that bill. But there were problems with that argument, not least of which was the fact that the judges could find no charter or mandate from Congress that gave the EPA the statutory right to do anything about fossil fuel, reserves or otherwise.

Even more damaging, the EPA's own attorney admitted to the judges that because of its higher volatility, putting ethanol into the nation's fuel supply would likely increase smog where it was used. One of the judges, on hearing that the EPA was actively promoting a substance that could in fact diminish air quality, wondered aloud, "Is the EPA in outer space?"

The final decision favored the American Petroleum Institute. The judges agreed that the EPA was bound by law only to promote items that would improve air quality -- not to reverse the nation's advances in smog reduction. That decision was apparently forgotten with record speed. In the summer of 2000, ethanol as an additive was mandated for the upper Midwest, including the city of Chicago and parts of the state of Wisconsin.

Act II, Scenes 3 and 4
After Asian economies had collapsed in the late '90s, the price of oil had fallen to as low as $10 a barrel. Gasoline was selling in many parts of the U.S. for as little as 99 cents a gallon. But by 2000, the per-barrel price had risen to $32, and gas was averaging $1.55 a gallon nationally. As they are today, the nation's drivers were incensed by the rising prices of gasoline and oil. And then reformulated gasoline made with ethanol hit Chicago and points north. Gas prices there suddenly soared over $2.00, with a few stations selling their product for as much as $2.54 per gallon.

At some stations in southeast Wisconsin, where reformulated gasoline wasn't required and gas cost considerably less, pumps ran dry in the panic, as savvy consumers topped off their tanks. Citing the Lundberg Survey, the Associated Press on June 12, 2000, stated, "Dealers in the Midwest, where many cities use a reformulated gas blended with the corn derivative ethanol, are paying a premium at wholesale."

Just a few months later, Brazil -- which had worked toward energy independence since the mid-'70s oil crisis and had already mandated that the percentage of ethanol in its fuel be raised to 24% -- was forced to import ethanol refined by the Archer Daniels Midland Co. (ADM) when the nation's sugar-cane crop suffered a devastating drought. Brazil understood that a year of poor crops was just as damaging to its national fuel supply as Iran taking its oil off-market would be to the rest of the world.

Then came the third act in this ethanol play -- and possibly the most misleading and disingenuous PR campaign ever.

Act III: Cue the Fact-Checker
It started with Congress, which mandated that even more ethanol be used to extend the nation's fuel supply. From General Motors, an ad campaign called "Live Green, Go Yellow" gave America the impression that by purchasing GM vehicles capable of using E85 ethanol, we could help reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

What GM left out of its ads was that the use of this fuel would likely increase the amount of smog during the summer months (as the EPA's own attorneys had admitted in 1995) -- and that using E85 in GM products would lower their fuel efficiency by as much as 25%. (USA Today recently reported that the Energy Dept. estimated the drop in mileage at 40%.)

But one final setup for the public has gone unnoticed. At the Web site, www.fueleconomy.gov, which confirms the 25% to 30% drop in mileage resulting from the use of this blended fuel, another feature lets users calculate and compare annual fuel costs using regular gasoline to costs using E85.

But the government site's automatic calculations are based on E85 selling for 37 cents per gallon less than regular gasoline, when the USA Today article reports that at many stations in the Midwest E85 is actually selling for 13 cents per gallon more than ordinary gas. Using the corrected prices for both gasoline and E85, the annual cost of fueling GM's Suburban goes from $2,709 to $3,763. Hence the suggestion that truth in advertising should come back into play. Possibly GM could rename this ad campaign "Shell Out Green, Turn Yellow."

Epilogue: Get this Wasteful Show Off the Road
The other negative aspect of this inefficient fuel is that numerous studies have found that ethanol creates less energy than is required to make it. Other studies have found that ethanol creates "slightly" more energy than is used in its production. Yet not one of these studies takes into account that when E85 is used, the vehicle's fuel efficiency drops by at least 25% -- and possibly by as much as 40%. Using any of the accredited studies as a baseline in an energy-efficiency equation, ethanol when used as a fuel is a net energy waste.

Furthermore, no one has even considered the severe disruption in the nation's fuel distribution that mandating a move into ethanol would cause. Over the past month, gas stations from Dallas to Philadelphia and parts of Massachusetts have had their tanks run dry due to a lack of ethanol to blend. The newswires have been filled with stories bemoaning the shortage of trucks, drivers, railcars, and barges to ship the product. Ethanol can't be blended at refineries and pumped through the nation's gasoline pipelines.

The recent price spikes for gasoline have forcibly reminded the people of Chicago and Wisconsin of what happened when ethanol was forced on them during the summer of 2000. Moreover, the promise of energy independence that Brazil has explored through ethanol is widely misunderstood. Recently a Brazilian official, commenting on our third and most recent attempted conversion to ethanol, said that when Brazil tried using agricultural crops for ethanol, it achieved only a 1:1.20 energy conversion rate, too low to be worth the effort.

FINAL BOW? On the other hand, ethanol from sugar cane delivered 1:8 energy conversion, which met the national mandate. Unfortunately for us, sugar cane isn't a viable crop in the climate of our nation's heartland. But the part of Brazil's quest for energy independence that the media usually overlooks is that ethanol wasn't the only fuel source the country was working on: Its other, more important, thrust was to find more oil. To that end, last week Brazil's P50 offshore oil platform was turned on. Its anticipated daily output is high enough to make Brazil totally oil independent.

More smog, infinitely worse gas mileage, huge problems in distribution, and skyrocketing prices for gasoline. Maybe now that we're witnessing the third act in America's ethanol play, the upcoming epilogue will close this show forever. Even great advertising works only if the product does.

HondaGuy1122 · #2 (**permalink**) May 9th, 2006, 09:25 PM

very interesting

Lil Sol · #3 (**permalink**) May 11th, 2006, 05:12 AM

I'd wish they'd give up on trying to use this crap, the answer has been in there faces for years..............hydrogen

njn63 · #4 (**permalink**) May 11th, 2006, 02:49 PM

is honda/toyota even playing with ethenol? I know Honda is working on Hydrogen and has been for a while.

HondaGuy1122 · #5 (**permalink**) May 11th, 2006, 02:57 PM

i think there is a gas station in new jersey that has a hydrogen tank to fill hydrogen powered cars...true? i unno

Clone · #6 (**permalink**) May 12th, 2006, 09:00 PM

yeah hydrogen is going to be the way to go... the trick is getting it available to the public and making it cheap.

kanscrx · #7 (**permalink**) May 12th, 2006, 10:14 PM

Hydrogen has as many problems as ethanol, and may pose even more of an environmental danger.

The fuel of the future will be a "bio" fuel, but it won't be ethanol. It'll be bio-d.

macbasq · #8 (**permalink**) May 13th, 2006, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clone

yeah hydrogen is going to be the way to go... the trick is getting it available to the public and making it cheap.

exactly. it take more energy to make hydrogen than it would to just drive a car with gas in the first place. so that means more pollution even if the car doesn't make any.

macbasq · #9 (**permalink**) May 13th, 2006, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kanscrx

Hydrogen has as many problems as ethanol, and may pose even more of an environmental danger.

The fuel of the future will be a "bio" fuel, but it won't be ethanol. It'll be bio-d.

not sure how hydrogen would be an environmental danger, maybe if you made sulfates in the process, but that's a problem now.

kanscrx · #10 (**permalink**) May 13th, 2006, 01:24 AM

here's a "for instance"
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/...vironment.html

macbasq · #11 (**permalink**) May 13th, 2006, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kanscrx

here's a "for instance"
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/...vironment.html

seems like a damned if we do, damned if we don't sort of situation. horray for global warming.

solar power ftw?

Lil Sol · #12 (**permalink**) May 14th, 2006, 05:56 AM

[QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kanscrx

Hydrogen has as many problems as ethanol, and may pose even more of an environmental danger.

The fuel of the future will be a "bio" fuel, but it won't be ethanol. It'll be bio-d.

Quote:

Fossil fuels such as gasoline, diesel and coal all produce airborne pollutants. Even methanol and "natural gas" create noxious fumes. Some of the major pollutants created from these fossil fuels are carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and methane. All of these pollutants contribute to smog and also play a major part as culprits behind acid rain and global warming.

Hydrogen fuel is a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels. Wind, solar and hydro power can produce hydrogen fuel that is 100% pollution-free and 100% renewable. Hydrogen can be made from water, and when burned, turns back into water

How is hydrogen made from water, and what happens when hydrogen is burned?

Most of us already know that water is composed of two parts hydrogen, and one part oxygen . The hydrogen atoms are separated from the oxygen atoms through a process called "electrolysis" and then compressed into fuel tanks. When the hydrogen atoms are subsequently burned as fuel, they recombine with oxygen atoms and turn back into water. Electricity can make hydrogen, and hydrogen can also make electricity. Hydrogen fuel cells are actually hydrogen batteries that generate electricity.

http://www.4hydrogen.com

Lil Sol · #13 (**permalink**) May 14th, 2006, 06:09 AM

They have hydrogen cars on the road, filling stations, and produce it pollution free. They even sell conversion kits on to convert your car to hydrogen.

Quote:

EU extends hydrogen push after city bus success
Thu May 11, 2006 7:59 PM BST
FRANKFURT (Reuters) - A pilot program has shown hydrogen-powered city buses work well without polluting the environment, the European Commission said on Thursday, extending its push to promote emission-free vehicles.

Twenty-seven public buses running in nine European cities since mid-2003 have carried more than 4 million people and clocked up more than 1 million km without incident, it noted.

"The question is no longer whether this technology works, but when will it be competitive," EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs said in a statement.

A new 105-million-euro ($134 million) project will track the performance of around 200 hydrogen-powered vehicles and the infrastructure needed to keep them running.

The EU will contribute 48 million euros to the public-private program that will put hydrogen-powered buses, cars, scooters and even wheelchairs to work on three continents.

German carmaker DaimlerChrysler is at the forefront in hydrogen technology, currently testing vehicles out in the field.

Vovchandr · #14 (**permalink**) May 14th, 2006, 03:15 PM

We need a revolutionary idea, somebody smart enough to come up with a good way to power our cars, without using ANY nonrenewable resources.

Yeah good luck with that, but still.

If we made a car that runs on piss, we'd never have a problem again.