As ethanol continues to insinuate itself into the fuel supply -- propelled by a slew of government goodies -- ordinary folks are getting fed up, The New York Times reports:
Many consumers complain that ethanol, which constitutes as much as 10 percent of the fuel they buy in most states, hurts gas mileage and chokes the engines of their boats and motorcycles.
In Oklahoma, some vendors are refusing to sell ethanol-spiked gasoline. And they're winning customers with signs like "No Corn in Our Gas" and "Why Do You Put Alcohol in Your Tank?" the Times claims. In Oregon, new rules requiring the state's fuel supply be E10 -- a mix of 90 percent gasoline and 10 percent ethanol -- are being associated with sputtering boat engines and failing weed whackers.
If ethanol offered any significant environmental benefit, these complaints might seem trivial. However, as I reported last year, estimates of greenhouse gas reductions range from minuscule to non-existent.
Meanwhile, taxpayers are shelling out billions for the troubles they perceive at the pump. Consider that in one of many, many government handouts to ethanol makers, tax payers surrender 51 cents in revenue for every gallon of ethanol that gets mixed into the fuel supply. This year, government mandates dictate that we mix in 9 billion gallons, a level that will climb to 15 billion gallons by 2015.
That means the amount we pony up for ethanol will rise from $4.5 billion for this year to $7.5 billion in 2015. What if we diverted that flow to something that would actually benefit consumers and the environment -- like building out the pathetically neglected rail transit system?
Corn-based meat and ethanol: burning the planet to a crisp
The U.S. military’s battle to wean itself off oil
Comments
View as Flat
timbuktu Posted 4:12 pm
29 Jul 2008
Permalink
rbright Posted 7:11 pm
29 Jul 2008
Secondly, why is it that the IEA, IPCC, and others, believe in biofuels' role as a major short-/medium-term AGW mitigator? An upcoming IEA publication, Energy Technology Perspectives 2008, will show that:
"..biofuels will have to play a significant role if the world is to make meaningful reductions in carbon dioxide emissions..." http://www.iea.org/journalists/infocus.asp
A recently (July) released report commissioned by the UK Secretary of State for Transport titled "The Gallagher Review of the Indirect Effects of Biofuels Production" concludes:
"We cannot afford to abandon biofuels as part of a low carbon transport future." http://www.dft.gov.uk/rfa/reportsandpublications/reviewof ...
Could it be that in order to accelerate the deployment of the friendlier 2nd Generation biofuel technologies, we need confident investors, and that hesitant investors would probably benefit from reassurance of a well-established, well-functioning, and generally accepted pre-existing biofuel market?
I hate corn ethanol as much as the next person, but knowing how difficult AGW mitigation is in the road transport sector, and knowing that mitigation will at least require medium-term deployment of a portfolio of innovative and "greener" transport technologies incuding advanced biofuel technologies, I tend to advocate the 1st generations in hopes that a general public (and media!) acceptance will create the inertia needed to increase investor confidence and thus spur earlier investment in the more advanced biofuel conversion technologies.
We can't have a "2nd" generation until we go through 1st -- let's just hope this "1st" generation is short-lived.
Regarding consumer whining about ethanol and powertrain performance, most newer model vehicles sold in the US are backed by manufacture's warranties for the use of E10 (http://www.drivingethanol.org/userdocs/Car_Manual.pdf) ...And those Brazilians that drive older vehicles on ethanol blends, what are they doing?
Interesting study by NREL regarding consumer views on ethanol and other alternative transport fuels: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39047.pdf
..Table 3.1.7 page 21: "Reasons Ethanol Would Be the Worst Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When Gasoline is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004)" ...shows that 1 out of 100 persons sampled cited the reason "causes engine trouble"...interesting..
Permalink
justlou Posted 9:44 pm
29 Jul 2008
And rbright, thanks for looking after those investors. They need all our continuing and forced support.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 10:55 pm
29 Jul 2008
What corn ethanol is not
An efficient way of reducing carbon emissions
A sustainable way of replacing oil in the US transport sector
The best value for money in green transport technologies.
About (1), oil has not much to do with carbon emissions. The king is coal, so let's concentrate on replacing coal.
Oil might last for 50 years. But we should replace it much earlier (maybe 15 years) The motivation is primarily economic - "to prevent the flight of US dollars to middle east".
We are talking of medium term here. In the long term we hope to use completely electrified transport.
So how can we replace oil ?
a) coal liquification
b) natural gas vehicles + natural gas liquification
c) biofuels
d) energy intensive biofuel production
Natural gas has a lot of utility for electricity generation. So let's not burn it in vehicles. And coal is evil, period.
So we are left with (c) and (d) biofuels. Biofuels have terrible energy density. The best we can come up with is 0.5 W/m^2. This will be burnt in further inefficient internal combustion engines.
But the question to pose is "Is this sustainable ?" Or Can USA grow its own biofuels for all its transport needs ?
The short answer is no. Heavy duty transport sector needs to be electrified, by trains. Once this is done, for private individual transport, biofuels can provide a significant percentage of energy. But this can only happen with cellulosic biofuels - which use the whole of biomaterial (including waste) and not just carbohydrates.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 12:47 am
30 Jul 2008
Victual Reality
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:39 am
30 Jul 2008
Admittedly, the ignorance of the American public knows no bounds. Rejecting E10 ethanol because they think it is hurting the performance of their boats and lawnmowers and not because it's starving the poor and exacerbating global warming is a sad commentary.
Secondly, why is it that the IEA, IPCC, and others, believe in biofuels' role as a major short-/medium-term AGW mitigator?
Firstly, it's hard to say why people "believe" in things, like biofuels, UFOs, sons of Gods, and on and on. Once people get a warm fuzzy idea in their heads it can be very hard to dislodge. Secondly, the IEA statement you refer us to (reprint below) correctly points out that of all the biofuels being produced today, only sugarcane has "excellent characteristics in terms of economics, CO2 reductions and low land use requirements" (i.e. it is the least environmentally destructive). They use the term "excellent" to describe a fuel that will only take a decade to recoup the carbon put into the atmosphere with its displacement of biologically diverse Cerrado grasslands. Not surprisingly, they fail to mention that when the crop displaces ranchers into the Amazon it will take many decades to recoup those carbon losses. Note also that they call for "governments to ...consider phasing out current incentive support schemes for biofuel technologies as they reach maturity..." I have no idea what the hell they mean by, "as they reach maturity".
Cellulosic, should it ever escape the lab does not stand a chance against the economics of cane ethanol. The Cerrado and Amazon are vast. Their destruction reached new heights this year. The latest studies now predict that half of these huge carbon sinks will be lost in the next twenty years. Two studies in Science, one in the Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, and the one in the Journal of Conservation biology all pointed out that the major liquid biofuels being produced today are doing nothing to mitigate AGW.
http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/ethanolenergy.jpg
Could it be that in order to accelerate the deployment of the friendlier 2nd Generation biofuel technologies, we need confident investors, and that hesitant investors would probably benefit from reassurance of a well-established, well-functioning, and generally accepted pre-existing biofuel market? ... I tend to advocate the 1st generations in hopes that a general public (and media!) acceptance will create the inertia needed to increase investor confidence and thus spur earlier investment in the more advanced biofuel conversion technologies
Your repetition of the "bridge to better biofuels" argument has been seen here dozens of times now. The biofuels industry is on the defensive and is using the allure of potential "second gen" fuels as a shield to defend the environmentally destructive biofuels being produced. People who have invested billions in corn ethanol and vegetable oil refineries are not going to happily go bankrupt (will demand further subsidization) should cellulosic or algae based fuels ever escape the lab. These fuels are not a bridge to second gen fuels, they will be a major impediment to them, a competitor with unlimited potential for continued government support.
I hate corn ethanol as much as the next person, but knowing how difficult AGW mitigation is in the road transport sector...
Difficult? My family reduced oil use 80% by simply switching hatchbacks (Outback for a Prius) and using an electric assist bike with a trailer on it for most in town single occupant errands. You have to get in line to buy a Prius, Fit, or Yaris right now.
We can't have a "2nd" generation until we go through 1st -- let's just hope this "1st" generation is short-lived.
The first part of your statement has not been defended. I fully agree with the second part. It is time to end government support of "first gen biofuels." They are wreaking havoc. They are an impediment to second gen, which are unlikely to compete with cane ethanol in the foreseeable future in any case.
Interesting study byConsumer reports:
The fuel economy of the Tahoe dropped 27 percent when running on E85 compared with gasoline
There is no market for ethanol. It is being forced down consumer's throats by government fiat. They subsidize it with their tax dollars and are then forced to buy it back as a blend in their gas regardless of cost.
IEA statement:
Biofuels
The recent shortage in grain stocks and surge in food prices have triggered questions about the sustainable production of biofuels. In reality, there are a number of important factors impacting food supplies and prices, including surging food demand, failed harvests and high energy prices [one of the major factors being biofuels] .
Biofuels do have an impact but the IEA considers it very important to differentiate between types. On one hand, most biofuels are attractive in that they may serve to replace imported oil and help diversify energy resources [but on the other hand they are all unattractive because to do so they displace ecosystems, carbons sinks and exacerbate high food prices]. However, some [Some? all but cane] current ("first generation") biofuels, such as ethanol from grains and biodiesel from oil seeds, may [May? do] compete with food, fibre and feed production, although currently less than 2 percent of global agricultural cropland is used for biofuels production [failing to mention that these biofuels comprise less than 2% of global liquid fuel supplies, suggesting that at 25% they will usurp 25% of food supplies]. (Source: Worldwatch Institute, "Biofuels for Transport: Global Potential and Implications for Agriculture", report prepared for the German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, 2007).
Biofuels can be produced in a more sustainable way and, properly managed [ignoring the economic reasons that explain why they are not being produced in a sustainable way or are being properly managed], they can offer valuable benefits to OECD and developing countries. The use of sustainable biofuels can increase energy security, foster economic development, especially in rural areas, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ethanol from sugar cane produced in the tropical/sub-tropical regions such as Brazil, southern Africa and India, for example, has excellent characteristics in terms of economics, CO2 reductions and low land use requirements [note here the sudden shift from the future potential of second gen fuels. They fall back on sugarcane, which does require displacement of carbon sinks and cropland to expand production and although it takes less time to recoup CO2 losses for the carbon sinks it displaces (as low as one decade for grassland)] .
"Second generation" biofuels from ligno-cellulosic feedstocks (straw, woody biomass residues, vegetative grasses) hold considerable promise for eventually providing more sustainable [read, less environmentally destructive] types of biofuels. Although they remain relatively costly options to date, through on-going public and private research and deployment investments, much progress has been made in recent years. Several small and medium-scale conversion facilities to convert ligno-cellulosic biomass to either ethanol or to synthetic diesel are expected to come on line over the next 2-3 years in countries such as the United States, Canada and Germany. The IEA calls on governments to increase their support for 2nd generation biofuels RD&D at this critical juncture, to consider phasing out current incentive support schemes for biofuel technologies as they reach maturity, and to explore a rapid transition to policies that promote advanced biofuels.
Biofuels are playing an increasingly important role in meeting growing transport fuel demand. They represented 49% of the growth in Non-OPEC oil supply in 2007 and this share is expected to rise to 55% in 2008 [i.e. comprise less than 2% of global liquid fuel supplies] An upcoming IEA publication, Energy Technology Perspectives 2008, will show that biofuels may have to play a significant role if the world is to make meaningful reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. In the report's most ambitious scenario, advanced biofuels supply about 700 million tonnes of oil equivalent, representing 26% of total transport fuel demand, by 2050.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
salemguy Posted 2:39 pm
02 Aug 2008
What is AWG?
Apart from being curious about this acronym, which I've not seen before, I am pleased at the intelligent comments I've read here.
People who write clearly, cite facts without invectives. I appreciate that.
I would contribute two possibly intelligent coments myself, have much more to say, but I'm not sure how feedback happens here.
First, yes, corn ethanol was a mistake, initiated because of corn lobby power and surpluses, now seen correctly as a not good idea, since we need it for fuel today but more importantly for food in the future.
Second, I appreciate the IEA statement that biofuels may contribute to transport fuel needs... as I recall perhaps 26% in 2050?
This appears to me to be based on two common but faulty assumptions. One, projections based on current use and growth assumptions are likely not valid in these dramatically changing times; and two, that we'll have enough affordable petroleum to be using it for the other 74%.
Greater conservation and efficiency, the two largest sources of "new energy" seem not to be well considered in most long term projections today. We can do a lot better. We must, and I hope and expect we will.
With that, I'm looking forward to learning how I am informed of and can enter this and other Grist dialogues.
Salemguy
Permalink
justlou Posted 10:22 pm
02 Aug 2008
And you are right on to some very logical and informed questions of projected demands for fuels. Anyone making these kinds of projections has extreme tunnel vision obscuring the rapid pace of changes, both positive and negative, happening in the world today. These kinds of projections are also based heavily on a growth oriented worldview that dictates that our future economic health is dependent on growth and that any constraints to that growth can be overcome -- the cornucopian vision. This is and will likely remain the dominant worldview among world leaders.
Permalink
rbright Posted 10:25 pm
03 Aug 2008
Permalink
salemguy Posted 2:25 am
04 Aug 2008
Duh. Normally I'm not dyslexic. Thanks for the clarification.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 2:40 am
04 Aug 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink