I live in Nebraska, one of the largest ethanol producing states around, so I may be a little biased. What people need to remember is we would be growing that corn anyway. We feed livestock with grain, and they end up eating whats left over after it leaves the plant. Newer plants lose 1-4% of the nutritional value of that grain. Yes it is subsidized on both sides (the farmers, the farmers fuel, etc and on the production side) and I agree that is bad.
Remember, we only convert the starches to alchohol and remove the corn oil (bio-diesel). Yeast, ammonia and large amount of heat are used to break down the glucose and this produces CO2 and alchohol. The alchohol is "dried" and denatured (they add about 1 gallon of 87 for every 100+ gallons of ethanol so people won't drink it) and shipped out.
Where I buy my fuel, Geneva Nebraska, they get their ethanol straight from the supplier 6 miles away in Fairmont. 85-90% of the corn used in that process is grown within 20 miles of the plant. That seems alot better to me then pumping oil out of the ground across the globe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toc
E10 is ultimately bad.
It contains less energy than is used to produce it.
This may be true in certain situations (if it is shipped over a long distance, etc). Still THE CORN IS GOING TO BE GROWN AND FED TO LIVESTOCK ANYWAY!
The production of it takes up valuable farming land - land which otherwise would produce food, a far more useful commodity.
This is virtually a non issue in the United States. Brazil may be in a different situation, what with slashing and burning the rainforest and all. Most of the land here has been producing corn/soybeans/alfalfa since at least the 30's. It will be producing those same crops in another 100 years.
The burning of ethanol produces far worser gases than that of 91, 95 or 98RON ULP.
Pretty much every study I have ever seen says this isn't true. I'm not a chemist, but the chemists at the University of Nebraska Lincoln, and Iowa state calculate somewhere around 50% less greenhouse emissions in alchohol fuel then regular unleaded.
The outcome of using E10 is that you will end up needing more fuel to travel the same distance (less energy content, less energy can be derived from it, you can't break the laws of thermodynamics)
Yup...that physics for ya. But that fuel doesn't get pumped out of the ground in a hate mongering mid-east or south american country. It doesn't have to be transported to the Gulf via barge. It doesn't have to be refined and pumped through a thousand miles of underground pipe. Frequently that fuel is then carried over the road another 600-800 miles (maybe even back in the direction in came in). Ethanol has to be transferred of course, but a fraction of what crude oil has to.
The price of E10 may be cheaper per L, but on a kM/L basis, you should come out ahead in price terms by using 95 RON fuel (and it's better for your engine).
ummm....no not usually. Ethanol based fuels are cheaper in the midwest, and that savings almost always off sets the lower btu/mpg rating. That may be a different story on the coasts or up north. Also, most newer (late 80's and up) vehicles handle e-10 or e-15 just fine. Just change your fuel filter and or oil a little more often. It also burns cooler in my hot rod lol.
LPG is a cheaper fuel here in Australia, used in taxis as it's 'the cheapest' fuel, the trouble is you need more of it to get the same distance as ULP. It's significantly cheaper (50% cheaper), but we are depleting the resources faster than ever, and so using it for a fuel isn't the best of decisions.
Eh, doesn't apply to us here. LPG is available but flex fuel vehicles are a better option to the average midwesterner. They arn't perfect yet, but they are getting better.
I place Ethanol in the same LPG basket, sure, it might be cheaper to some extent (not cheap enough here for me), but if you look at the real costs of it, you are paying the difference through either the poorer quality air breathed in, to higher priced food due to lack of farming land / lack of interested farmers if Ethanol is more attractive to them.
Minus the health issues, this may be slightly valid. My family and friends rotate to corn more often then they did a few years ago, because they have a good deal buying it back as feedstock. Biomass ethanol plants will make this a virtual non issue when we begin producing ethanol out of the "leftover" corn stalk/corn stover. That will eventually be the best of both worlds.
I realise that this price specific points would apply to Australia and not necessarily in the USA, my point is that the number of L required to produce x KM is a consideration, I wouldn't buy 36L of E10 for 380kM if I can get 450kM from 36L of 95RON. I still wouldn't buy E10 if I could get 420kM - the food & environmental impacts will cost more than the savings.
To each their own. Nobody wants to make you buy e-10, e-15, e-85. My vehicle runs fine on up to e-30 (we got smart and put in blender pumps), and I'm ok with the mileage penalty. YMMV
Ethanol in fuels is madness, it's like saving 5c worth of fuel coasting in neutral, but getting a fine because you went downhill 10kM faster as a result of coasting.
The big oil companies want us to think that its madness because it threatens them. I hate to say look at Brazil because they really screwed up when it comes to the enviromental impacts of clearing millions of square acres of land, but they are waaaaay more energy independant then we have been for 80 years. BP and others don't want us to energy independent, they are making money hand over fist on our backs as it is.
|
Is ethanol perfect? Is it going to save America? No, its just a small step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned. We really don't have to do anything different as far as farming goes, once again THAT CORN WOULD HAVE BEEN GROWN ANYWAY.
Plants are getting more effecient. More and more plants are putting feed lots on site and using cow crap (methane) to power generators that run the plant. The corn gets delivered to the plant, milled, converted to ethanol & corn oil, and the gluten gets shot out the back door to the cattle, which get buchered and fed to the farmers. Pretty elegent (eco?) solution if you ask me.
People always bring up the switchgrass solution...Well first of cellulose/wet ethanol plants are less effecient (takes longer) so they produce less fuel. The technology is just not there yet. I know that both switchgrass and the beets you use in Europe are more carbon friendly, but we can't use the gluten left over to feed cattle. Finally, the climate in the midwest is not really all that well suited for these crops. We would have to pump ALOT of water out of the ground to get more then 2-3 cutting of switchgrass a year for a given field.
I'm not a chemist, enviromental scientist, and I don't own any stake in the ethanol industry but I do try and support it. It creates AMERICAN jobs with an AMERICAN grown product. It lessens our dependancy on big oil (middle east!). Hopefully the industry keeps evolving and improving itself. When gasahol was launched in the late 70's it gave the industry a bad name, and its kind of a shame. If people don't want to use it, that's fine with me too.
Anyway, I'll try and stop my ranting now. Do whatever makes you feel better, and buying fuel that is partially produced in (literally) my back yard makes me feel better and breathe easier. God bless.