The original push for ethanol was based on corn ethanol as a ‘bridge’ to cellulosic and other sources of ethanol. Progress on that front has been MUCH slower than exected, resulting in huge increases in corn use to inefficiently make ethanol. But it’s the law, and Congress doesn’t have the spine to recognize and correct the failure that has occurred…
I don’t mind a small amount of Ethanol if it makes emissions cleaner (which it truly can do). But higher amounts of ethanol blended into gas don’t serve any purpose other than to pad the pockets of special interest.
What WOULD be more worthwhile pursuing is something like Ford’s Bobcat engine - where Ethanol is added in tiny amounts via second injectors just to alter combustion and get to a higher compression ratio. Autoblog claimed the Bobcat could run at 28:1 compression ratios without knocking or pinging (I’d believe it when I saw the dyno output). That would lead to MUCH more efficient and cleaner combustion. Just look at the boost Mazda got in MPG going from 10 or 11:1 compression ratios to 13 or 14:1 with Skyactiv…
Ethanol powered engines can run at higher compression ratios and are more efficient if they do so. But in the USA, engines are optimized to run gasoline.
@the same mountainbike,
MTBE and ethanol were never about domestic fuel production. It has to do with health and unburned dino fuel. We know from research in the 70’s that adding oxygen in the fuel reduces unburned fuel. This creates the smog and ground level ozone that hurts all breathing animals. The change to oxygenate has been a documented success. But now there are more cars and trucks and more pollution. As to damage to old engines if you look carefully the complaints are fuel system related and they are specific to degraded rubber fuel hose. The whole nonsense of heavy work engines going to ethanol just makes my head spin. Why not soy diesel or corn. Same difference. I really do not understand why folk like you do not get the science on burning a fuel that has more oxygen in it for a clean burn. You just oppose it with no real reason.
Nope, ethanol today is supposedly ALL about reducing petro imports. With today’s emission controls there is really no improvement in exhaust pollutants. The negatives (using food, increasing costs, huge use of fertilizers polluting runoff and groundwater, etc) far outweigh the benefits.
Nope, ethanol today is supposedly ALL about reducing petro imports.
I’ll agree with anything greater then 10% ethanol in gas is about reducing imports. But the 10% in gas is used as an oxygenater. The intent is to increase the oxygen in the gas to make it burn better to eliminate some polutants. MTBE is another oxygenator. But it has problems in ground water contamination. I go agree that the E85 and now E15 is to decrease our dependency on foreign oil.
The oxygenate requuirement was eliminated in 2005, when the renewable fuels requirement was enacted:
"Renewable Fuels Standard
Section 1501 includes an RFS that requires the production and use of 4.0 billion gallons of renewable fuels in 2006, increasing to 7.5 billion gallons in 2012. For calendar year 2013 and each year thereafter, the minimum required volume of renewable fuels would be an amount equal to the percentage of total gasoline sold in the Nation in that year that was represented by 7.5 billion gallons in 2012. In addition, starting in 2013, the required amount of renewable fuels must include a minimum of 250 million gallons derived from cellulosic biomass. Small refineries with a capacity not exceeding 75,000 barrels per calendar day are exempted from the RFS until 2011. Noncontiguous States or territories (Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.) are not covered but could petition to join the renewable fuels program. Both ethanol and biodiesel are considered to be renewable fuels, and a 2.5-gallon credit toward the RFS is provided for every gallon of cellulosic biomass ethanol produced. A program of renewable fuels credits would allow refiners, blenders, and importers flexibility to comply with the RFS across geographical regions and over successive years.
The RFS is modeled in AEO2006, both for the minimum required volumes and for ethanol derived from cellulosic biomass. Actual renewable fuel supplies may or may not exceed those minimum requirements, depending on the relative costs of renewable fuels and competing petroleum products. In the AEO2006 reference case, ethanol consumption is projected to exceed the RFS, because it is projected to be available at relatively low cost. AEO2006 implicitly reflects the ethanol production and consumption behavior that resembles the effect of a national RFS credit trading system, resulting in ethanol blending in gasoline that varies by region.
Elimination of Oxygen Requirement for Reformulated Gasoline
Section 1504 eliminates the oxygen content requirement for RFG. This provision takes effect immediately in California and 270 days after enactment of EPACT2005 in the rest of the RFG regions. Without the oxygen content requirement, refiners are likely to phase out MTBE in gasoline as soon as practical to minimize exposure to environmental liabilities in the future. Several refiners have announced plans to stop making MTBE when the oxygen content requirement expires. Also in Section 1504, volatile organic compound (VOC) Control Regions 1 (southern) and 2 (northern) for RFG would be consolidated by eliminating the less stringent requirements applicable to gasoline designated for VOC Control Region 2.
Elimination of the oxygen requirement for RFG is included in AEO2006. MTBE is assumed to be phased out in all regions by the end of 2008. Ethanol is likely to be favored in RFG blending in most regions, based on economics and its other attractive blending characteristics, such as high octane value. "
Also, the actual impact of ethanol production and use may well be negative on air pollution if all aspects are included:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2007/april18/ethanol-041807.html
Eurydale, I debate with respect for the opponent’s intelligence. Two people equally knowlegeable can look at the same data and draw different conclusions, and in this case there is a great volume of varying data to choose from.
You were doing great with your debate right up until the end, when you decided to insult me at the end of your post. You should learn to respect the perspectives of others even if you disagree with them. You’ll learn more from the people who disagree with you than from the people who agree with you.
Now that I’ve gotten that off my chest…
Because oxygenization creates a more complete burn does not automatically equate to methanol being beneficial to the environment. The MTBE you yourself mentioned is an excellent example of this. It does more harm than good. Data from the 1970s is too old to be using in judging the impact of ethanol. A great deal has been learned since the '70s. One thing that’s been learned is that ethanol is not the panacea it was thought to be.
Another is that the environment is far more complex than we originally thought. I clearly recall in the '70s the environmentalists telling us we needed to prepare for an “ice age”. Now we’re being warned about “global warming”. There’s no consensus in the scientific community as to how much impact human activity even has on the earth’s environment, or even if the current warming is simply a normal fluctuation. Scientists know that the earth has experienced far, far wider temperature swings than it’s currently undergoing…and man’s presence on the planet is only a very, very tiny dot on the tip of the planet’s timeline.
The EPA since its inception has done great things. I remember having a military layover just outside of LA in '71, and the air was so thick you could butter it on bread. I remember rivers and streams brown with contamination. There’s no question that the Clean Air and Water Act was necessary and no argument that the EPA has made a tremendous positive difference.
But the methanol push is politics, not science. It’s been proven to not be beneficial to the environment. However, there is a 54 member ethanol producer’s lobby in the beltway lobbying to protect the $6 Billion (yup, $6,000,000,000) annual federal subsidy…check it out). There is a move underway right now to eliminate the subsidy. We’ll see than how loved ethanol is.
Ethanol is about money and politics. It isn’t about about Mother Earth.
As I’ve mentioned before, what really grates on me in regards to the Ethanol issue is the amount of corn that is grown around here and allowed to fry in the fields. There’s a narrow window to harvest it between fully green and burnt to a crisp. At least cut it and do something with it rather than allow it to fall over and get plowed under.
It’s depressing to look out over a 140 acres of corn and see nothing come of it.
The wind power issue has taken a big turn for the worse here as the landowners (all farmers) who agreed to provide land for yearly lease payments are getting stiffed now that the project is about 90% done. There’s been a 159 liens filed against all of the property owners because the turbine construction company (one of the largest and nationwide) has stiffed the company that did the concrete foundations for the towers. The concrete company sued, got a judgement, and they’ve filed liens en masse.
Not only are the landowners not getting lease checks now, they also cannot do anything with their own property; meaning they can’t sell it, borrow money against it, or anything else until the liens are all satisfied and removed.
There are some ticked off people around here and it wouldn’t surprise me if someone starts taking potshots at turbine heads with a deer rifle at night. A 30/30 round into a gearbox would translate into the most expensive transmission job in the world… :-0