Where the octane number is raised by blending in ethanol, energy content per volume is reduced. Gasoline has an energy density of almost 10,000 Wh/l and pure Ethanol only 6,000.
Ethanol is inferior compared to basically any combination of gasoline + non-ethanol octane booster.
These strengths are almost never written about or discussed. I agree with many of the points of the article in terms of the production efficiency issues, and corn being a weak production candidate, but I can't stand if/when this becomes an ethanol-substance bashing bonanza.
I also can't stand (in the overall discourse on the matter) when the article's points are used against the adoption of ethanol over petroleum. These aren't reasons against ethanol, they're reasons to work towards optimizing the means of production.
Corn ethanol is more an indirect way of converting coal to something your car can run on. There are many other more efficient plant sources that do not require large doses of fertilizer and herbicides, usually drawn from coal energy.
Corn is an indirect way of converting oil into sugar. It is just as inefficient at making food as it is at making fuel (though that's less obvious because the end product doesn't have the same units.) There's a great article in an old issue of Harper's called "The oil we eat" (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/02/0079915).
I find it amazing that people are complaining that diverting corn to make ethanol raises food prices, when you can make the same argument that diverting corn to feed cattle raises food prices. Making beef via corn is an extremely inefficent method that's only viable because of cheap oil.
If the real concern is feeding people, you eat vegetarian. From a food supply point of view it's pure waste to feed cattle food that humans can eat directly. (Letting cattle eat grass on land not suited for agriculture is different.) The only reason it's sustainable to raise cattle the way it's done in the U.S. is because of an abundance of cheap corn due to cheap oil.
As far as I can figure out, diverting corn to feed cattle raises corn prices and lowers beef prices.
Since beef eats up a much larger fraction of my grocery budget than corn (and is, additionally, far more delicious) I'm cool with this.
It is counter intuitive, but this statement is not exactly a fact. The corn->protein process via chickens is actually quite efficient. I'll give some sample numbers:
1 acre corn -> 150 bushels corn -> 10,000 lbs of corn -> 4000 lbs of chicken -> 1500 lbs of protein.
1 acre of peanuts -> 3000 pounds of peanuts -> 750 lbs of protein.
So the corn->chicken process is twice as efficient at producing protein as growing peanuts which are pretty efficient. Sure, a soy protein diet is the most efficient, but who wants to exclusively eat tofu?
Eating beef is wasteful, but chicken is comparatively efficient to eating vegetarian. Most vegetarians I know eat lots of tree nuts, avacados, etc, which from a food supply point of view, is far worse than getting protein from chicken or pork.
I'm sure there are a few places that irrigate corn, but here in Ohio the water that grows the corn falls from the sky.
If oil prices reflected the true cost of using it, it would disappear by itself. Without cheap oil it's not cost efficient.
Anyone here good with changing laws? :)
But considering it's Iowa we are talking about, most politicians if they want to be president won't touch it with a 10-foot pole.
Ethanol is destroying small engines (generators, lawn mowers, etc) and most definitely reduces mpg by 10%
a gallon of ethanol costs approximately 17 percent less than that of a gallon of gasoline
(and yes, I use "subsidies" and "welfare" interchangeably because it's corporate welfare)
Researchers at U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory
Yes it does. I took a trip cross country (florida to california) this past may. Ethanol infested gas killed MPG by at best 10%, at worst 20%. It wasn't even that much cheaper, too.
Err... who the hell do you think would fund such a study? I doubt there is any bias from taking government money.
Not because ethanol is bad, but because they weren't designed for it
most definitely reduces mpg by 10%
This is because it has lower energy density. But before you make a big deal, it has a higher octane rating, so cars designed to run on high-ethanol can run leaner/more compression, and recover economy.
it allows them to dilute the less profitable gasoline (to 'cut' it)
Despite your paranoia, there are good reasons to add some ethanol. As I mentioned, it is a cheap octane booster, which is good for your engine. Additionally, being an alcohol, it absorbs water. This helps prevent rust and therefore sediment build-up in gas station holding tanks and the gas tank of your car.
Ethanol is a very good fuel. It is quite safe, relatively harmless as fuels go, burns very clean, has respectable energy density... Economics of producing it aside, it is perhaps one of the best fuels for small heat engines. It just doesn't look good when compared to gasoline, because gasoline is freakishly energy-dense, and all modern gasoline engines were designed to run on gasoline, giving gasoline the "home field advantage".
The FAA, due to pressure from the EPA, is looking to switch the entire aviation industry to SwiftFuel from low-lead fuels.
More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#Swift_fuel
SwiftFuel has the advantage of being able to run, in theory, in most/all aircraft engines without modification. (Fuel pumps need to be replaced, however)
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/06/five-ethanol-myths-bust...
For example, addressing the concern that ethanol production crowds out food production, it simply states that a different kind of corn is used... ignoring that the same land and other inputs could be used for food crops.
Addressing the concern about greenhouse gases, it mainly talks a bunch about 'vehicular gaseous hazardous air pollutants' and carbon monoxide – not the same as 'greenhouse gases'. The only reference to "life cycle analysis" is a sentence-fragment quote from an unnamed study with unclear context.
And 'myths' #4 and #5, that ethanol takes more water to produce and results in lower gas mileage? Well, this 'debunking' actually concedes both those 'myths'.
Not an impressive ethanol defense.
That said, the guy is a mechanical engineer at ANL, so I wouldn't take it as a sanctioned response from ANL. Claiming that the other corn isn't used in food production is disingenuous by the guy, since it is being used, but just via animals.
If you look at the lab biofuels splash page (http://biofuels.es.anl.gov/), you'll see they're working on things like water, nutrients and algal biofuels to improve the process.
There's a lot of work going into making 2nd generation biofuels actually viable, using cellulosic biomass and crops that can grow on marginal land. People are even working on producing fuel molecules that aren't ethanol (e.g. butanol).
We have a saying at work: Ethanol is for drinking, not for driving.
Maybe the subsidies should go there, to promote job creation in those areas for the infrastructure buildup.
(Didn't read the article)