Ethanol is not the answer...

[OwlCaboose2853]

Ethanol is not the answer... Short-sighted thinking will only hurt our state even more
Sunday, April 08, 2007
BY JIM BEYER
I am once again dismayed at Michigan's automakers' decisions with respect to the future of the automobile, namely in how to power it. In a meeting with President George W. Bush on March 26, the Big Three were unanimous in their support for E-85, a fuel mixture which is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. The automakers' CEOs - Rick Wagoner, Alan Mulally and Tom LaSorda - all agreed that E-85 is "the answer'' to fueling future automobiles to lower America's dependence on foreign oil.

America uses 360 million gallons of gasoline and 100 million gallons of diesel fuel every day for transportation. That works out to nearly 170 billion gallons of fuel per year. The United States produced approximately 4.8 billion gallons of ethanol last year, less than 3 percent of our fuel needs. Even with huge increases in production, ethanol cannot be expected to provide more than a third of our fuel needs even by 2030. Furthermore, ethanol costs about twice as much as gasoline for the energy provided to your car. The whole enterprise is heavily subsidized by our tax dollars.

If these ethanol subsidies are to be lifted, who will pay the difference? Will the automakers be ready and willing to fund the cost disparity to benefit the consumer? I don't see THAT happening. Yet they are keen to promote ethanol as the solution to our energy problems.

Advocates of ethanol point to a future where ethanol may be produced from a more basic plant product, cellulose. Cellulosic ethanol, they claim, will be lower in cost and therefore more economical. The problem here is that even if cellulosic ethanol can be made economically viable, the process is still energetically costly and inefficient with the biomass used. All ethanol must be distilled, or boiled out of the stillage to reach the purity needed for use as a fuel. This requires energy. (Think of the moonshiner's still with the fire burning underneath it. Producers of ethanol fuel have to perform a more sophisticated version of the same operation.)

Using mature, proven technology, the same amount of biomass can be anaerobically digested to produce methane instead. More than twice the amount, energetically, when compared with cellulosic ethanol production. No energy-intensive distillation is needed. With our energy problems, can we really afford to be throwing away half of our biomass energy content for a fuel which is just a bit more convenient to use? At half the fueling cost, it wouldn't take many tankfuls of methane to pay for the cost of a pressurized fuel tank. About a year's worth of driving for the typical commuter.

It is easy to see why the Big Three chose the ethanol route. It's a seductive story that makes some sense if one doesn't look too hard. It enjoys great support in the farm belt. And best of all, they need only spend a few hundred dollars per car to convert their existing product line to be "flex-fuel,'' allowing for use of E-85 (that is, if you can even find a pump that will provide it).

Like the famed "Hydrogen Economy,'' the Big Three automakers see ethanol as a way to push off the problem of our oil dependency for a few more years and avoid making the hard changes needed to sustain the automotive industry through the next century. Such short-sighted thinking will only hurt the state of Michigan more when it is finally realized by our addled lawmakers that ethanol is no answer to our energy problems.

A bolder move would be to aggressively develop pluggable hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). Pluggable or plug-in hybrids convey the benefits of all-electric vehicles at a fraction of their cost. Unlike ethanol, there are plenty of electricity sources available that can actually power a nation-fleet of plug-ins, including wind and solar sources. Plug-ins represent the best option at this point to actually eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, and eventually, to address concerns of climate change as well.

It is much harder to develop a plug-in hybrid than it is to change a fuel line or two to make an ethanol-ready vehicle. But plug-ins represent a true solution to this serious problem, not a theatrical gesture to wave in front of dim-witted politicians. And if the Big Three do not develop PHEVs, someone else will, and the circumstances of our state with drift downward further.

So to General Motors, Ford and Chrysler: shame on you. You should know better.

http://www.mlive.com/news/annarbornews/ ... xml&coll=2

*******************************************
I found that EERE website, what is comparing about the Alternative Fuels Data Center?
Check out at EERE (Energy Efficiency and Rewardable energy): http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/

[trainjunkie47]

Politics as usual. I agree ethanol is not "the answer". Ethanol is an option, but hardly "the answer".

[OwlCaboose2853]

Never mind, other person who answered from Shortline.
Thanks

[Norm]

If they would get the politics out of it and let the market decide ethanol would likely disappear.

[CAT345C]

Ethonal is definetly not the answer, but looking at GM's website I was building a truck I'd like to lease, and now, you have the option of a flex fuel engine as a standard, or you can upgrade for more money to a bigger engine, that won't do E-85. I'm glad they nixed the E-85 option and just made it standard (on some models)

Anyways, I don't see E-85 becoming much of a one hit wonder. I see Bio-Diesel becoming more popular, as you can already run it in your diesel engine with no damage to the filter or lines, rumors say it will super clean your fuel lines and erode them, but tests have shown in a Diesel Pickup that that will not happen. And you get the same horse power burning McDonalds Oil as you would buring Exxon-Mobil, its just cheaper.

I don't want to toot any horns, but bigger things are coming in the Big 3 that could cause a big explosion of issues. :cough:no work strike:cough:

[GrandTrunkFan]

Ahh you all are small picture thinkers! Yes its not cost effective now, but how about in 10 years when a gallon of gas will most likely excede 5 dollars a gallon? Ever think of that? Yes its not a solution right now but it will ease the stress on the old belt. If its made and stored right now, we will have it for an emergency when we could get a large supply of oil cut off like the 70's. Small picture thinking is why these kind of alternative fuel productions dont work. Mike I do agree with you on biodiesel. Im in the diesel game so to speak and have read many articles and listened to many of my diesel instructors at UNO and I believe that will be a good thing to understand. I would like to get a diesel truck and run it on veggie oil from our local Lake O McDonalds. And plug-in-able electric cars, if you lead an "alternative lifestyle" go for it. Id rather have ethanol and run a big block with some power and speed behind it than a weak little electric toy.

[lemscate]

Ethanol from corn ain't the answer. It's only remotely viable when heavily subsidized. Ethanol from sugar cane, like Brazil is using, is viable. Ethanol from algae is actually an incredibly good option, once the technicalities get worked out. See http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... 13775.html Algae has a lot going for it, namely it's grown by volume, not area like land crops, doesn't displace food crops, and can use waste CO2 from industrial processes (thus has a net CO2 production of 0).

But, as long as Iowa remains with the first presidential caucus, it keeps its clout, and therefore corn subsidies. And we all get corn in our chocolate, pop, vehicles, and just about everything else. And the rest of the world laughs at us.

[Norm]

"Ahh you all are small picture thinkers! Yes its not cost effective now, but how about in 10 years when a gallon of gas will most likely excede 5 dollars a gallon?"

And, what will the price of ethanol be? Don't forget that all this fuss is politically motivated. The "haves" are becoming steadily more greedy at the expense of the "have nots".

[GrandTrunkFan]

Well, mathmatically, it should be considerably less, But god knows politicians are going to stick their noses in that as well and tax the crap out of that as well. But if we continue to study and develop ethanol tecnhnologies, it can only help our oil dependancy. I agree 100% that its not a quick fix method. But its not completely a waste like all of you suggest. But then again, we all need something to complain about. Some people would rather complain about high gas prices and wish there were alternatives, or others can complain alternatives are useless. Whatever floats your boat, guys.

[~Z~]

I'd really like to see us either heavily develop fusion power, or highly improve our current nuclear technology... then develop LOTS of power, make it cheap, so we can just power our cars on electric power... have quick electric charging stations...we'd be all set.

[lemscate]

[quote="railroadfan"]I'd really like to see us either heavily develop fusion power, or highly improve our current nuclear technology... then develop LOTS of power, make it cheap, so we can just power our cars on electric power... have quick electric charging stations...we'd be all set.[/quote]

Wouldn't even need to develop nuclear further. It's already done. Waste from our current nuclear reactors can be run through pebble bed reactors and plutonium reactors, netting substantially more energy. But the nuclear paranoia won't let any more nuclear plants be built, or old ones continue to operate, for that matter. So we continue to burn coal, which pollutes substantially more than nuclear. But at least we get more coal trains: up to three a day! Take that, nuclear paranoid environmentalists!