Ethanol, for decades largely an afterthought in the global fuels market, is in the midst of a booming renaissance, despite a host of questions.

Keith Cate Looks At Ethanol

WFLA Video: Ethanol - Part 1 | WFLA Video: Ethanol - Part 2 | WFLA Video: Ethanol - Part 3

Audio Slideshow

Related Stories

Opposition Grows To Ethanol | Ethanol Plant A Ray Of Hope In Midwestern Town

U.S. Corn Industry Cranking Up For Ethanol Boom | Questions Loom For Auto Industry

Ethanol Comes With Impact, Despite Green Image | Other Plant Sources For Ethanol Sought

Ethanol Enjoying A Boom Despite Questions

Sounds like ethanol offers more downside than upside.
Inflationary to our food supply, a drag on water supply,
yet minimal reduction in oil use.  Why isn’t there more
emphasis on conservation???

A classic example of the lame-brained thinking that “environmentalists” use to make themselves feel better. This article should be a wake up call to everyone even a tiny bit concerned about the hysteria that surrounds the Global Warming myth.

We are supposed to build refineries for ethanol, when for 30 years the tree huggers would not let us build oil refineries. The government is going to relax the pollution standards for these plants, allowing more garbage into the air than would be allowed for a typical oil refinery. As the price of corn rises additional wooded land will be cleared (with the tree huggers blessings) to raise the stuff. Millions of acres that currently produce vegetables, soybeans and cotton will be switched over to corn crops. We will need more fuel consuming trucks and trains to transport the stuff, instead of using pipelines like the oil industry. The finished product is about 20% less efficient that gasoline, so you will need more of it to travel a mile.

So, let me see if I can summarize the ethanol industry. We cut down more trees to grow corn that goes on a smoke belching truck to a smoke belching refinery, to produce an inefficient fuel that is then transported on another smoke belching truck or train, that goes into the ground in tanks that must be larger than the current ones at a place where you have to make more frequent trips to get the stuff because you need more of it to run your car. Meanwhile, you will be paying out the ying yang for food and clothing because the inefficient fuel you demanded has driven the price of the raw material that produces it through the roof.

What makes perfect sense to me, is drilling for and refining our own oil. We have enough oil under U.S. soil to sustain us for generations. The pollution standards for oil refineries are as high as they come, and the jobs in the industry pay well.. The pipelines, once laid are pretty efficient for moving product.

But, I must be corn-fus-icated, because if producing oil makes so much sense to me, but not to highly educated environmentalists, whereas ethanol production suits their model of saving the world, then what am I but another uneducated, unwashed redneck moron.

Harold,

You are simply not getting it. Environmentalists are not looking out for the environment they are using environmental policy to promot socialistic and communistic policies to control people.  It isn’t about protecting the environment it’s about bringing the USA down. 

Read http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=the_“coal_is_filthy”_ad-scam&ns=PaulDriessen&dt=05/12/2007&page=1 for their attack on coal which is even more benifical than oil.

For M. V. McQueen above, and others who didn’t even read the articles, I’ll summarize the key points below.  The accuracies in MacQueen’s post are 1. EPA relaxed pollution standards for Ethanol plants, 2. distribution of Ethanol is less efficient than distribution of petroleum, and 3. consumption of Ethanol is less efficient than consumption of petroleum (you need more of it to go the same number of miles).  Other than that, he’s way off base with his delusional claims that “highly educated environmentalists” (we know how loaded that term is) are behind the push for more ethanol.

Supporters:
-Iowa Farmers
-Indiana Farm Bureau
-Investors who see profit:  Billions of dollars in government support are going to developers of ethanol plants, as well as subsidies - tax credits - of 51 cents refiners get for every gallon of ethanol they put in blended gasoline. (Source)
-General Motors
-Renewable Fuels Association (Source)
-President Bush proposed increased Ethanol production in his State of the Union Addres

Opponents:
-Those who fear increased groundwater consumption & air pollution (Source)
-Other Environmentalists:  “Environmental groups and supporters of higher mileage standards say the emphasis on ethanol blends is the wrong approach . . . they see Flex Fuel Vehicles as a hindrance to improving fuel economy standards. Flex-fuel vehicles have lower gas mileage rates than comparable vehicles because ethanol has a lower energy content than gasoline.” (Source)

Pros:
-Less Oil consumption
-Boost to local economies & Jobs in areas of production
-According to Argonne National Laboratory, ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by up to 20 percent compared to the gasoline equivalent.  Moreover, Argonne also calculates that the use of nearly 5 billion gallons of ethanol in 2006 reduced carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by more than 8 million tons, the equivalent of removing 1.2 million cars from the road.
-Brian Jennings, executive vice president of industry group American Coalition for Ethanol in Sioux Falls, S.D., said areas with histories of using 10 percent ethanol blends have actually shown air-quality improvements.

Cons:
-Increased Water consumption
-Air Pollution in production: nitrogen oxide, a key element of smog, and a nasty odor.  (In early April, the EPA increased how much pollutants ethanol plants can emit before facing tougher restrictions.) (Source)
-Increased road traffic near area of plant (Distribution by rails & roads less efficient than by pipelines)
-Low fuel efficiency in consumption (you need more ethanol to go the same number of miles)

Notes:
-cellulosic ethanol can be made from agricultural waste byproducts including wood chips and prairie grass (but it costs about twice as much as cooking up corn-based fuel) (Source)

Conclusion:
Cut the anti-environmentalist rhetoric out , and let’s discuss the real issues.  MacQueen, your argument against Ethanol would have been more effective if you would have stuck to the facts. 

Bonus:
MacQueen actually aligns with the “highly educated environmentalists” on this issue!

PLEASE get all the facts before you debate on Ethanol. Florida is so retarded, it’s unbelievable. Do we want to be the laughing stock of the Ethanol Era like we were for the 2000 Elections. To this day I still hear stupid jokes about it. Watch those links below.

First link :Scroll down to the video “FARM TO FUEL”.

Don’t miss the part about the recycling of the water they use and the fumes coming out of the plant is STEAM not pollutant and the corn for Ethanol is FIELD corn NOT the one we eat (sweet corn). Sweet corn prices went up because ALL food prices went up. That what we get when the world is obsessed with food and humans make babies like there’s no tomorrow.

People are so stupid. They choose to believe the naysayers instead of doing their own research. Please educate yourself.

Don’t you think that if Ethanol is so wrong for the world that the brains of the World wouldn’t invest in it?
Bill Gates, Al Gore, Arnie, Sir Richard Branson who has joined forces with two of America’s top venture capitalists to slake the world’s thirst for environmentally friendly fuels.
Branson has injected more than $60m into a company that will make bioethanol from corn. He is investing alongside Vinod Khosla, the renowned Silicon Valley entrepreneur, and Ron Burkle, a Los Angeles billionaire who counts Bill Clinton among his advisers.

As for the corn based ethanol nay-sayers:

They all raise a valid point about corn volatile commodities but they are assuming that Ethanol Producers are stupid.

Don’t you think that every Ethanol producers and Investors don’t know all the risks involving corn based ethanol?

That’s why they’re already perfecting many different ways of producing the goods. Heck, you can make ethanol of just about anything; cattle manure, cellulosic fibers, sugar canes not to mention all kind of garbage that us humans produce in abundance.

WE, THE HUMAN RACE WILL FIND A WAY TO MAKE IT WORK. IT’S A MUST AND URGENT SITUATION. THE ETHANOL ERA WILL TRIGGER A DOMINO EFFECT TO ALL KIND OF WAYS TO BETTER AND HOPEFULLY SAVE OUR PLANET BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE. THE WHIZ MASTERS OF OUR WORLD HAVE GLOBAL APPROVAL.

WATCH “S.O.S. LIVE EARTH” WITH AL GORE AND THE WORLD JULY 7, 2007

http://liveearth.org/?p=22

http://www.drivingethanol.org/news_events/media_video.aspx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq8wdgqqKEU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaFo81saRDw

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article720.html

Don’t forget that ethanol dramatically decreases the life expectancy of internal combustion engines.  Cars won’t last as long, so people will have to spend more on them, and the fuel used to manufacture more cars to replace those that deterioriated before they should have will also severly negate any benifits of ethanol.  The biggest problem is it will cost us all more money per mile to drive if we use ethanol so it will not be viable unless forced upon us by the government.

Where do you people get this stuff?
Maybe from these very impartial sources below. Please do yourself a favor and read every articles. Specially this one about “Junk” science where you probably got all your facts.

Don’t miss the one about Bush hiring the ex-CEO of Exxon of all people to put him in charge of this whole Renewable Fuel era. Folks these people are not playing fair. We owe it to ourselves as Americans to know all the facts. Otherwise we might all have to move to Brazil.

http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/deniers.html

http://www.exxposeexxon.org

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/5/31/92641/1517

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/lula_da_silva/2007/05/the_challenge_of_sustainable_d.html

Ok, well I have read through a tremendous amount of posts coming from people that are very ignorant on this topic.  I work for a company that is developing cellulosic technologies in San Diego.  I fully support Governor Crist’s initiatives and initiatives like these will be imperative for us to have sustainable, reliable sources of energy for generations to come.

Here are a few main facts that people should know:
1.) Cellulosic Ethanol is being made at $1 a gallon currently in labs.  Once it becomes commercialized, the cost will most likely be lower and this savings will be passed to consumers.

2.) There is a net positive energy balance with the production of ethanol.  Yes, corn based ethanol facilities (dry-grind facilities) have downfalls with water usage and transportation.  This is obviously not a long-term strategy for the US and will not be in 5 years when cellulosic ethanol has taken over.  However, most people do not realize that most water used in the process is recycled.  Furthermore, the processed corn (DDGs Dried Distiller Grain Solids) is sold to farmers that feed their cattle.  DDGs are healthier (higher fats and proteins) for the cattle and cheaper than corn.  On top of that, some plants use methanators (energy from cow dung) to fuel the power of their plant.  Oh and most ethanol plants capture the CO2 that is used for other applications.

3.) New research from the Dept. of Energy has evidence that E20 and E30 blends of gasoline actually give more mileage per gallon compared to unleaded gasoline.  The argument that ethanol is not as efficient will be debunked in some sense and the best blends will be formulated to maximize efficiency.

4.) Processes for producing ethanol will become more cost efficient, power efficient, and environmentally friendly in years to come with the development of enzymes.  Ethanol plants currently do pollute.  But if you really want to do some research like I have, go to an ethanol plant and then go to an oil refinery.  You make the decision by just looking at the process what pollutes more!  I can give you the empirical evidence if you want to see the side by side comparison in equivalent amounts of volume processing.

5.) Ethanol for fuel only uses 20% of the country’s corn supply.  Supply that would go to feed cattle but instead is processed to make useful by-products which fuel cars and still feeds the cattle with a more nutritious product (DDGs).

6.) Analysts project gas to be in the $4 range by next year if not higher.  While this isn’t necessarily a fact yet, gas will go over $4 in the next 2 years if not $5.

Was the first computer a lap top?  I think the first computer was very inefficient and filled the size of the room requiring abnormal amounts of input.  I could go on with several examples but you get the point.  Give ethanol a chance!!  It has just begun to be realized as an alternative fuel and this is being fueled by the fact that consumers are getting excited.  The more excitement created (higher demand) created by us, the faster the innovations in this new area will come to market. 

This will probably be my only post because people are going to focus on one aspect of ethanol or blow something out of proportion that they have no idea about.  The bottom line is we need ethanol to take our reliance off of the Middle East.  The technologies out there are admittedly not the best at the moment but are becoming more efficient as time progresses.  If you are interested in paying $1 a gallon for gas 5-10 years from now while saving the environment, join the pro-ethanol movement.  If you are against ethanol, I hope you can afford $7 a gallon for gasoline 5 years from now.

No Wars, Better Environment, One Answer: Ethanol,
Hack

That’s a little missleading, leaving out some very important facts.  The engines was specially prepared to run on ethanol blends, not regular gasoline engines. Yes an engine designed to run on ethanol bleds will get better millage with ethanol blends than pure gasoline. Just like a diesel engine will get better milage running on diesel than gasoline (in fact most diesel engines won’t even run with gasoline).  The very same research showed that an ordinary version of the same car with an ordinary engine not specaliy designed for E20 or E30 fuels got the best millage with pure gasoline. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/business/05cnd-ethanol.html?_r=2&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

In tests this summer, a Chevrolet Impala built for ethanol blends up to 85 percent, called a “flex-fuel vehicle,” got 15 percent better mileage on a 20 percent blend than on ordinary gasoline; at 30 percent, mileage was worse than the other two. An ordinary Impala, not designed for blends above 10 percent, showed the best performance on straight gasoline.

What are the cost differences in the engines, what are the longevity of the new engines, how much more energy do they require to build than ordinary engines, etc.  If the same technology was employed to the pure gasoline engine what would it’s millage have been.

What about polution. From the same article

A 2001 study in Australia found that at 50,000 miles, a Hyundai Accent not designed for ethanol but running on a 20-percent blend had pollution emissions that violated standards there and were far higher than the same car running that many miles on straight gasoline.

Because we will not eliminate our existing fleet, using ethanol in our existing fleet of million and millions of vehicles will cause more polution, less longevity, poorer performance. To effectively use ethanal will require higher costs for specalized engines to run hi ethanol blends etc. complete replacement of the existing fleet of automobiles (a huge waste of energy vs. keeping existing vehicles on the road).  We’d be much better off putting our research dollars into electric powered cars with zero emissions and building more nuclear power plants than a different carbon based fuel source. Hydrogen fuel cells could help dramatically extend the range of electric vehicles, and the Hydrogen can be made for nuclear electricy. Or reducing some of our obscure regulations so that cars like the 1985 Honda CVX, or 1987 Suzuki Swift could be sold in the US again. 20 years ago these cars got 57mpg right here in the USA.  These vehicles are available in other countries today but because of our buying habits and government regulations are no longe available, here.