Alternatively Bad for the Environement
Posted by Andy on July 8th, 2006
I drove a flex fuel truck in the Coon Rapids parade this weekend. They had a nifty difty label hangng off the dash that caught my eye.
It shows the mileage difference between E-85 & regular gasoline. You get up to 100 miles less out of a tank if you’re burning ethanol. That, translated to English, means it gets much lower MPG on ethanol, than gasoline. Now, since you will not be driving 100 miles less per tank on ethanol, you will have to burn more ethanol in order to drive the same distance, meaning, you’ll be kicking out more air polution.
I went to the website listed on the label, and found out that a truck doesn’t actually produce less air polution while running on ethanol.
So why is this crap the solutionagain? Oh, and I sure hope the morons powers that be that are pushing this crap like crack dealers are going to allow for the massive MPG reductions in the next mandate of CAFE standards.
If you want to go ‘green’ you have to allow for the reduction in mileage for CAFE. You literally can’t have it both ways.
Sphere: Related Content
July 8th, 2006 at 11:54 am
Using ethanol reduces all pollutant emissions relative to gasoline, except NOx. In addition, it reduces carbon dioxide emissions by a small, but significant amount. Also, even given the fact (yes, the fact) that ethanol contains fewer btu’s per gallon than gasoline (hence the lower gas mileage), you’re still using less energy overall than gasoline (the net energy balance of ethanol is positive, by a small amount) and much less petroleum (by a large amount, something like a 6 to 1 ratio).
So, using ethanol produces less pollution, less carbon dioxide and reduces our dependence on foreign oil, relative to gasoline.
Those are the facts, my friend. ‘Course, if you want to continue to send your money to support unstable and unfriendly governments in the middle east and south america, you’re welcome to do so.
July 8th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
Sundog - go read the Washington Post article that I linked to at http://www.ladieslogic.com/2006/07/ethanols-false-promise.html and then answer a few questions?
Do you realize that even if we converted every square acre of tillable land into corn to produce ethanol, how are going to feed our families?
If we take every bit of the corn plant, including the stover, and put it into ethanol production are you willing to put up with the increased use of chemical fertilizers that will be needed to keep the land fertile and growing corn? Do you realize how much corn we would have to grow in order to produce enough ethanol to make a dent in our current gasoline consumption? Do you realize how much energy is used (in the form of fertilizer, transportation, processing etc) to make 1 single gallon of ethanol?
If we take every bit of the corn plant, including the stover, and put it into ethanol production - which goes against common environmental land management - what are you going to suggest we do to prevent the next dust bowl? You see, aside from naturally fertilizing the land, plowing the stover back into the ground helps prevent erosion…
Ethanol is not the answer……sorry.
July 9th, 2006 at 1:13 am
I say we get rid of sugar tariffs. Give Florida, Hawaii and the Caribbean a shot at the money. Sugar is the best source of ethanol. You have to subsidize the production of any other kind of ethanol which is just plain stupid. (Unless of course, you are a corn grower.) Other uses of corn are more lucrative and beneficial. Fighting the law of comparative advantage is a losing game.
July 9th, 2006 at 9:36 am
Sure thing, LL:
1. Do you realize that even if we converted every square acre of tillable land into corn to produce ethanol, how are going to feed our families?
This is a false dilemna — no one (and I mean, no one) is talking about “converting every square acre” to corn-ethanol production. Long before we get to the issue about corn for people food, corn-ethanol raises livestock feed issues. Beyond a certain point, turning corn into ethanol will increase the price of livestock feed, something that the ag community is very aware of. We won’t get anywhere near that level.
2. If we take every bit of the corn plant, including the stover, and put it into ethanol production are you willing to put up with the increased use of chemical fertilizers that will be needed to keep the land fertile and growing corn? Do you realize how much corn we would have to grow in order to produce enough ethanol to make a dent in our current gasoline consumption? Do you realize how much energy is used (in the form of fertilizer, transportation, processing etc) to make 1 single gallon of ethanol?
Again, a false dilemna: In Minnesota, and I’m sure elsewhere in the Midwest, taking a good portion of the stover off the field (not all) will actually allow farmers to put less nitrogen-fertilizer onto their fields. Large nitrogen amounts are necessary to counteract the carbon that’s in the stover. Taking a good amount of the stover off, and turn that into ethanol (or gasify it or pelletize to offset natural gas use for process heat) will allow many more Midwest farmers to utilize “no-till” farming techniques, which would be HUGELY beneficial for conservation and land preservation. This enhances the ability of the soil to “stay put” rather than result in a “dust bowl”. Also, the net energy balance of ethanol (energy used to make ethanol) is slightly positive for corn-ethanol (more energy produced than is used in production), but much, much better for stover-based ethanol.
3. If we take every bit of the corn plant, including the stover, and put it into ethanol production - which goes against common environmental land management - what are you going to suggest we do to prevent the next dust bowl? You see, aside from naturally fertilizing the land, plowing the stover back into the ground helps prevent erosion…
No, that’s incorrect — see answer to #2.
Ethanol is not the silver bullet to our energy independence issues, but it is one of a handful of alternatives that we can and must rely on in the short to mid-term. Energy conservation (increased fuel efficiency) is another. Biodiesel is a third. Plug-in hybrids, especially those that run on E85, are a promising technology and must be encouraged.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
But as long as we subsidize ethanol, we prevent other solutions from coming to the market– especially if we continue to rule out exploiting our known petroleum reserves. I am all far taking Middle Easter oil so long as the price is favorable, as we’re doing now. Then, when they run out, WE will be in the catbird seat. In the meantime, we should let the free market work. Let the price of gasoline go up as it will. Let the oil companies drill, like in ANWR, where there is ZERO reason not to. Then watch us come up with more efficient cars (like the all-electric, multifuel gas turbine), oil shale extraction, and hydrogen extracted by nuclear power.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
“This is a false dilemna — no one (and I mean, no one) is talking about “converting every square acre” to corn-ethanol production. Long before we get to the issue about corn for people food, corn-ethanol raises livestock feed issues. Beyond a certain point, turning corn into ethanol will increase the price of livestock feed, something that the ag community is very aware of. We won’t get anywhere near that level.”
The problem, Sundog, is that we have to turn every tillable acre over to ethanol production in order to make a small DENT in our gas consumption. That is one of the biggest problems with ethanol.
J.Ewing is correct - as long as we subsidize ethanol we prevent the market from finding other solutions and we NEED other solutions besides ethanol.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
You guys are both correct regarding subsidies, but only if all the subsidies go away for all types of fuel resources. Let them (including petroleum) all stand on their own two feet — and we’ll see what develops. But, I have a better chance of winning the lottery than of that happening (and I don’t play the lottery). So, in the real world, we need to develop alternatives, and ethanol absolutely has to be one of those alternatives. And, no, LL, it’s not correct to say we have to turn “every tillable acre” over to ethanol production to put a small dent in our gas consumption. That’s hyperbole. We should do as much as makes sense, understanding that ethanol, by itself, isn’t the silver bullet. No one is claiming that it is. And work on exploring, developing, utilizing other alternatives (including all the ones that J. Ewing mentions). Solving energy independence issues isn’t an “either-or” opportunity.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Sundog,
You are wrong. Corn ethanol is still a negative energy source when you take into account the fuel efficency. We expend more fossil fuel BTU’s creating it (transporting corn expends much more energy than pipelining oil, large amounts of natural gas are used for heat during the distilling process etc.). Brazil’s cane ethanol does get the ratio to the positive side, but corn technology has yet to do so. If the natural gas heat for distilling could be replaced by nuclear generated heat, we could get ethanol to the plus side.
Margaret,
Good point on Sugar. Puerto Rico is a big U.S. territory whose economy is struggling. Cane ethanol could give it a big boost. Hawaii’s sugar industry is kept afloat only through tariffs and subsidies. It would die without them. However, if that sugar could be made into something more valuable like ethanol in a cost effective manner they could perhaps survive without the protection. It would likely only be viable if the ethanol stayed in Hawaii (shipping costs are huge), but they pay a premium for gas/oil because of those same shipping costs. The shipping expenses saved could be enough to make it cost effective and make the Islands close to self-sufficient gasoline-wise.
I am with Sundog in that I’m hugely in favor of finding alternative fuel sources that work. The sooner we do, the quicker the nuclear hammer becomes a viable deterrent to whack jobs like Ahmadinejad.
July 10th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Heh if you guys want to start lifting subsidies, may I also suggest we lift tariffs on foreign sugar. South America can produce sugar for many times less than we can, even accounting for transportation costs. If you’re going to argue open-market principles, let’s not do it half-assed.
July 12th, 2006 at 2:15 am
First post, newest newbie….
June 26th, 2007 at 7:09 am
[...] http://www.residualforces.com/2006/07/08/alternatively-bad-for-the-environement/ [...]