Good read on ethanol

[CosmicCowboy]

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/11/12/t...sh/?cmpid=hpfc

[RandomGuy]

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/11/12/t...sh/?cmpid=hpfc

It is a complex issue. If one can find cheaper, less intensive stock for the ethanol, the cost/benefit would be a lot clearer.

In this case, you can boutons will have some mild agreement on this subject.

The jury is out for me.

Personally I would look to bioreactors.

http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/...--bioreactors/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_bioreactor


I think that will become feasible and cheaper before ethanol, which is heavily government subsidized.

Personally, I think we should cut ethanol subsidies, cut corn subsidies, and really force strict agricultural pollution controls to keep the negative externalities to a minimum. This is a technology and industry that has had long enough to develop, and should be forced by the free market to either get more efficient, or be replaced by something that is cleaner or cheaper.

[pgardn]

I keep reading they are on the cusp of being able to use the stalk, leafs, etc... Basically produce ethanol using cellulose which would be incredible. But nothing has become of it so far. The scenario would be that you could go back to growing corn for feed, and all the leftovers would be used for ethanol. The leftover cellulose is plowed under currently in the majority of corn fields or used for a non related non fuel function.

[pgardn]

I would also note that many other engines like outboard units on boats use an additive to ethanol laden fuel because it attracts water and screws up the boat engines. The additive is not cheap.

[scott]

It is a complex issue. If one can find cheaper, less intensive stock for the ethanol, the cost/benefit would be a lot clearer.

Finding a cheaper, less intensive stock for ethanol would be a lot clearer if not for the market distortions created by the corn lobby.

Ethanol was first pitched to us as replacement for methyl tertiary butyl ether, which was vilified as a polluter of ground water (though it's leaky tanks that were the true villain) because ethanol is not water soluble. Then the corn lobby convinced us that corn ethanol was a perfect green alternative, dispute the fact that no one could make the numbers work. So now we have corn subsidies, ethanol subsidies and trade barriers on imported ethanol and feedstocks all propping up this sham.

On the flip side, US Oil Consumption is down from it's 2005-07 peak of around 20.7 MMBPD to only 18.5 MMBPD, so we are consuming nearly a billion less barrels of oil per year in the US. Meanwhile, US production is up from its 2005-06 low of 8.3 MMBPD of crude to 1985 levels of 11.2 MMBPD.

http://www.eia.gov/countries/country...fm?fips=US#pet

Glad I'm not in the oil business anymore.

[RandomGuy]

Finding a cheaper, less intensive stock for ethanol would be a lot clearer if not for the market distortions created by the corn lobby.

Ethanol was first pitched to us as replacement for methyl tertiary butyl ether, which was vilified as a polluter of ground water (though it's leaky tanks that were the true villain) because ethanol is not water soluble. Then the corn lobby convinced us that corn ethanol was a perfect green alternative, dispute the fact that no one could make the numbers work. So now we have corn subsidies, ethanol subsidies and trade barriers on imported ethanol and feedstocks all propping up this sham.

On the flip side, US Oil Consumption is down from it's 2005-07 peak of around 20.7 MMBPD to only 18.5 MMBPD, so we are consuming nearly a billion less barrels of oil per year in the US. Meanwhile, US production is up from its 2005-06 low of 8.3 MMBPD of crude to 1985 levels of 11.2 MMBPD.

http://www.eia.gov/countries/country...fm?fips=US#pet

Glad I'm not in the oil business anymore.

I fully agree.

[Wild Cobra]

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/11/12/t...sh/?cmpid=hpfc

But the ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today.

This is almost always the case when politicians get involved.

Nothing new here. I think everyone here for a few years may recall I am against ethanol for fuel. Now if it can stand on it's own profit margin with no subsi9dies, and not pollute the waters, then fine. The farmers and corporate en ies will be all over it with no subsidies needed.

[boutons_deux]

converting food (even if it's pretty ty food called modern, non-nutritious mono-culture corn), after growing it with Bs of tons of precious water and saturating the land and water with Ms tons of x-cides, then consuming 100 Mw's in refining into transport fuel is criminally insane.

Somebody must have measure of end-to-end energy consumption calculation of corn to gasoline, aka eROI. My guess it's as bad a pounds of input to a cow to produce a pound of muscle.

Blaming Obama for the subsidized ethanol industry that the Repugs creatted to enrich BigAg is of course bull propaganda.

[pgardn]

This is almost always the case when politicians get involved.

Nothing new here. I think everyone here for a few years may recall I am against ethanol for fuel. Now if it can stand on it's own profit margin with no subsi9dies, and not pollute the waters, then fine. The farmers and corporate en ies will be all over it with no subsidies needed.

Many corporations take on projects AFTER the government pays for the R&D through University Science grants. Basic research allows for companies with the smarts to read the basic literature and run with it if they see profit.

So a biggie up for basic research govt. funded, or no?

A deviation from the ethanol debate, sorry.

[boutons_deux]

"This is almost always the case when politicians get involved."

and for you, the corporations of BigAg and BigChem are not involved?

They OWN and manipulate the politicians you despise to enrich themselves with taxpayer dollars.

[Wild Cobra]

Sorry, I am not for tax dollars funding research that is effectively for partisan or political reasons. Corporations are always doing their own research, and do jump in once they see a viable profit point.

[Wild Cobra]

"This is almost always the case when politicians get involved."

and for you, the corporations of BigAg and BigChem are not involved?

They OWN and manipulate the politicians you despise to enrich themselves with taxpayer dollars.

Yes, politicians are not hard to corrupt. Just shows how many voters are too stupid to cast good votes. We get what we deserve as a nation.

[boutons_deux]

"many voters are too stupid to cast good votes"

again, wrong target. The political system is so distasteful to "good" candidates that they aren't even presented on the ballot as the 1% finances candidates sucking up to the 1%, to the UCA/VRWC.

A bigger problem with voters is that many don't vote due to disaffection with politics, which is EXACTLY what the tea baggers/Repugs want. The lower the voter participation, the better for the Repugs.

[pgardn]

Sorry, I am not for tax dollars funding research that is effectively for partisan or political reasons. Corporations are always doing their own research, and do jump in once they see a viable profit point.

They do their own research in many, many cases AfTER the basics have been discovered which are more expensive and have been funded by you and myself. ESPECIALLY in medicine, energy, and the military. No particle or quantum physics research funded by the government? Let the EUROs go it alone and get the lead on the technology and patents that will arise?

I understand some will be political and unnecessary. That's for govt agencies NIH etc ... To give grants for good science. No trust? None at all?

[Wild Cobra]

"many voters are too stupid to cast good votes"

again, wrong target. The political system is so distasteful to "good" candidates that they aren't even presented on the ballot as the 1% finances candidates sucking up to the 1%, to the UCA/VRWC.

A bigger problem with voters is that many don't vote due to disaffection with politics, which is EXACTLY what the tea baggers/Repugs want. The lower the voter participation, the better for the Repugs.

No, again I blame the voters. they fall prey to individual desires instead of what's best for us all, and fall prey to negative campaigning.

One of the few campaign reform laws I would like to see is that all negative ads must be verifiably true, or those making such ads are sued or jailed. Treat any negative campaigning as a possible slander case.

[TeyshaBlue]

Blaming Obama for the subsidized ethanol industry that the Repugs creatted to enrich BigAg is of course bull propaganda.

Except, as Ive illustrated on more than one occasion, it wasnt a "repug" initative. It was as bipartisan as it gets.

[TeyshaBlue]

Finding a cheaper, less intensive stock for ethanol would be a lot clearer if not for the market distortions created by the corn lobby.

Ethanol was first pitched to us as replacement for methyl tertiary butyl ether, which was vilified as a polluter of ground water (though it's leaky tanks that were the true villain) because ethanol is not water soluble. Then the corn lobby convinced us that corn ethanol was a perfect green alternative, dispute the fact that no one could make the numbers work. So now we have corn subsidies, ethanol subsidies and trade barriers on imported ethanol and feedstocks all propping up this sham.

On the flip side, US Oil Consumption is down from it's 2005-07 peak of around 20.7 MMBPD to only 18.5 MMBPD, so we are consuming nearly a billion less barrels of oil per year in the US. Meanwhile, US production is up from its 2005-06 low of 8.3 MMBPD of crude to 1985 levels of 11.2 MMBPD.

http://www.eia.gov/countries/country...fm?fips=US#pet

Glad I'm not in the oil business anymore.

+10. MTBE wasnt even a particulalry effective agent as well.

[boutons_deux]

+10. MTBE wasnt even a particulalry effective agent as well.

Persistence and pervasiveness in the environment[edit]

MTBE gives water an unpleasant taste at very low concentrations, and thus can render large quan ies of groundwater non-potable. MTBE is often introduced into water-supply aquifers by leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) at gasoline stations or by gasoline containing MTBE spilled onto the ground. The higher water solubility and persistence of MTBE cause it to travel faster and farther than many other components of gasoline when released into an aquifer.^[9][10]

MTBE is biodegraded by the action of bacteria. In the proper type of bioreactor, such as a fluidized bed bioreactor, MTBE can be rapidly and economically removed from water to undetectable levels. Activated carbon produced from coconut s s and optimized for MTBE adsorption can also reduce MTBE to undetectable levels.^[11]

Health risks[edit]

According to the IARC, a cancer research agency of the World Health Organization, MTBE is not classified as a human carcinogen. MTBE can be tasted in water at concentrations of 5 – 15 µg/l.^[12]

As of 2007, researchers have limited data about the health effects of ingestion of MTBE. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded that available data are inadequate to quantify health risks of MTBE at low exposure levels in drinking water, but that the data support the conclusion that MTBE is a potential human carcinogen at high doses.^[13]

Legislation and litigation in the U.S.[edit]

Main article: Methyl tert-butyl ether controversy

MTBE removal from groundwater and soil contamination in the U.S. is estimated to cost from $1 billion^[14] to $30 billion,^[15] including removing the compound from aquifers and municipal water supplies and replacing leaky underground oil tanks. In one case, the cost to oil companies to clean up the MTBE in wells belonging to Santa Monica is estimated to exceed $200 million.^[16] In another case, the City of New York estimated a $250 million cost for cleanup of a single wellfield in Queens, NY.^[17] More recently, a jury awarded the State of New Hampshire $236 million in damages^[18] in order to treat groundwater contaminated by MTBE.

MTBE is banned in the US states of California and New York, starting January 1, 2004. As of September 2005, twenty-five states had signed legislation banning MTBE. (A table of state by state information, as of 2007, is available at theUnited States Department of Energy website.^[19])

In 2000, the U.S. EPA drafted plans to phase out the use of MTBE nationwide over four years. As of fall 2006, hundreds of lawsuits are still pending regarding MTBE contamination of public and private drinking water supplies.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005, passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, did not include a provision for shielding MTBE manufacturers from water contamination lawsuits. This provision was first proposed in 2003 and had been thought by some to be a priority of Tom DeLay and Rep. Joe Barton, then chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.^[20] This bill did include a provision that gives MTBE makers, including some major oil companies, $2 billion in transition assistance as MTBE is phased out over the next nine years.^[21] Due to opposition in the Senate,^[22] the conference report dropped all MTBE provisions. The final bill was passed by both houses and signed into law by President Bush.^[23] The lack of MTBE liability protection is resulting in a switchover to the use of ethanol as a gasoline additive. Some traders and consumer advocates are blaming this for an increase in gasoline prices.^[24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methyl_tert-butyl_ether

[boutons_deux]

Next generation of biofuels is still years away

The first trickle of fuels made from agricultural waste is finally winding its way into the nation's energy supply, after years of broken promises and hype promoting a next-generation fuel source cleaner than oil.

But as refineries churn out this so-called cellulosic fuel, it has become clear, even to the industry's allies, that the benefits remain, as ever, years away.

The failure so far of cellulosic fuel is central to the debate over corn-based ethanol, a centerpiece of America's green-energy strategy. Ethanol from corn has proven far more damaging to the environment than the government predicted, and cellulosic fuel hasn't emerged as a replacement.

"Cellulosic has been five years away for 20 years now," said Nathanael Greene, a biofuels expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Now the first projects are up and running, but actually it's still five years away."

http://m.miamiherald.com/mh/db_42936...l=true#display