Is Ethanol in Gasoline Really Green, or Just a Scam?

I think that the only real advantage is reducing emissions at the point where traffic goes. That is, in crowded cities you can reduce emissions within the city. I think this is a viable cause, but you need to factor in all of the types of pollutants and the impact to the local and global environment. So it is a complicated thing.

The downside is that you probably increase the total emissions when you factor in the impact of production of ethanol. The net effect is you just relocate some of those emissions outside the city (i.e., where ethanol is grown and processed).

Another downside is that it will reduce your car's gas mileage, so your cost per mile goes up because ethanol costs about as much as gasoline. I was getting 31.8 mpg highway, but I can't touch 28 mpg highway with a blend of 10% ethanol. Again, your mileage may vary, but everyone's car runs less efficiently with ethanol and mine may be an extreme case. I need to do more testing on my car to determine exactly how much worse it is.

In older cars there is a risk of ethanol damaging the rubber fuel lines and rubber seals in the fuel system. Newer cars are built with this in mind.

Then there is the issue with competing for food production and driving up food prices.

If they can fix the issues I cited above, then there probably is cause for using it. If not, the benefit may not exceed the cost.

You guys are looking at to from the wrong end of the car.

It's "Green" because you don't have to dig a hole a few miles deep to get the oil out to make the gas, you don't have to have a huge refinery to make alcohol.

"Green" comes from not destroying the earth to drive to work. I don't remember anyone claiming less pollutants.

Okay, but give me a concise definition for "green". You can cite some examples, but you need a definition that can tangibly be applied as a test so that we can say that this green and this is not.

The problem with your analogy is that you are assuming oil exploration/refining is less green than ethanol production. I see no data that proves that. Can you cite sources to back up your claim? Also, why are you tossing out pollutants as part of the criteria?

I am applying the definition if "Green" as I understand it just like you are. "Green" is the new catch phase to get some one on board with what they are selling.

I don't have the time to research article and ref. them for you. Every article I have read about ethanol and it's "Green" effects has compared the PRODUCTION of ethanol and the PRODUCTION of gas.

If you have an article that claims your going to get better mileage, or less pollutants, please share, I've never seen one make that claim.

The problem with your analogy is that you are assuming oil exploration/refining is less green than ethanol production.

I'm been coming to this site much to long to know your smarted then that. No way are you compairing drilling for oil to planting corn!!!

Ah, well unless you do the research, then the best you can say is that it appears to...

However, there are many recent articles that have been challenging the idea that ethanol is "greener" than gas. Here is one such article that I think is neutral that might be good reading. I can't make any claim as to its validity on the subject, but it raises valid questions about ethanol product and its true cost.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1031370/cornfed_ethanol_production_fuels_controversy/index.html

Consider that ethanol still requires pesticides and fertilizers. 95% of ethanol is produced by corn, which requires extensive use of herbicides, insecticides, and natural gas-based fertilizers. Furthermore, corn production creates the highest amount soil erosion compared to other agricultural products. The article also makes a good point about the math. There are serious concerns about the amount of energy required to make ethanol versus the amount liberated by burning it. This claim is not an idle claim and I have seen it many times. It may be that ethanol is a viable energy source, but there is evidence that it may not be.

The argument may be very sound since there are a number of ways to do the accounting and many times only a portion of that equation is cited to promote a point, not the whole picture. The whole picture is where things get difficult. There are so many things that must be considered that the true costs are probably never going to be able to be determined.

Finally, like "climate change", the subject is so politically riddled that it is no longer possible to tell truth from fiction.

From a consumer standpoint, if my car's gas mileage goes down 10% on the highway as initial evidence supports, then I effectively go less miles on $25 in fuel than I did running premium gas. I admit that my car is not the normal car, but we recently went from 100% gas to a blend of 10% alcohol and the pump prices never dropped (they continued to climb).

On the highway the 10% alcohol in my car and a 10% reduction in fuel mileage doesn't just cancel out, it costs me 10% more per mile to run than it did a few months ago. For me that is a cost increase. Obviously, my engine management system does not appreciate alcohol.

Other cites claim studies showing a loss of mpg in the order of 1.5% to 3.3% using E10 fuel. This seems more believable, but again, it is a net loss for consumers because the fuel prices have not dropped to offset that loss in efficiency.

Where this is all going is that the true savings for each mile we drive , be it amount of pollutants or dollars spent, does not appear to be reduced or offset for using ethanol - at this time.

If the cost of ethanol slides far enough we could see a net gain, but nobody has predicted when that will happen. Then we still have to address the true impact to the environment from cradle to grave for ethanol production. If we don't know, then it is hard to put together a real argument for its benefits over 100% gas.

I agree Hero, GA

So, using a 16" diameter hole in the earth to extract hundreds of thousands of gallons is worse than farming acre of land of land to get a gallon or so of a fuel that has 30% less energy density? Hmmm. I never did very well in thermo, but that doesn't make sense, but I guess that was your point to begin with.

Perhaps we are looking at it from the wrong era.

It is EPA requirement for seasonal fuel oxygenation, to limit noxious emissions, that is behind gasoline-alcohol blending. EPA does not specifically require grain alcohol, but the other additive (its name now escapes me) was found to be a significant water polluter; hence the shift back to alcohol. It is during periods of "fuel supply crisis" such as the past couple of years, that the talk turns to alcohol as a means to stretch gasoline supplies--but that has not been the blended fuel driver. Much the same occurred during the OPEC induced shortage and "scare" of the '70s.

So alcohol is "green" primarily in the sense of reducing fleeet-wide noxious emissions.

You're looking at it from the wrong end. How much land that would otherwise not be used, or used to produce a viable crop, is now being plowed up, planted, watered, fertilized, subsidized at taxpayer expense, etc to produce the stuff? It has been proven to be an inferior fuel for around 100 years now. By the way, how much oil/fuel is going into plowing, harvesting, fertilizing, insectisiding to cultivate the taxpayer subsidized fuel? And last, exactly how much "foreign oil" do we import? If so, what exactly is wrong with trade? It's what countries do.

The only rational reason for ethanol is so farmers can get money from taxpayer subsidies, Archer Daniels Midland can donate $$$ to politicians for the support of the stuff(started with Jimmy Carter and supported by politicians of both parties ever since), and the taxpayer can foot the bill. It is a fuel for suckers, and we are the suckers.

What are we to do? Interesting question. My first thought is to throw out all the politicians in Washington and replace them with folks who have not lost the ability to think rationally about things that have a profound effect on the lives and livelihood of their fellow citizens. Upon further reflection, however, that is much easier said than done. Just look at the current election process underway for an example of the inanity routinely practiced by our erstwhile and aspiring leadership. With all the assertions of the various factions, all with their own agenda, it's difficult to get real facts anymore. Combine that with the near apathetic attitude of most of the American public (unless they somehow get wise to the fact that what your trying to do is going to directly effect their own wallet), and it's a recipe for disaster. Most folks don't take the responsibilities of citizenship very seriously anymore. This has left the door open for opportunistic politicians and destroyed the ability of the free market to find the most sensible solutions to the challenges we face as a society. When people pay attention and are diligent to keep themselves informed, then they, as the constituency of the free market, help it to function. Today's public though is largely ignorant regarding the real facts needed to make sound judgements on the issues facing them. This is due partly to the influence of the media loudly trumpeting the latest assertions of anyone who even claims expertise. The public doesn't know what to believe. I for one just do the best I can to be responsible in how I utilize our resources within the constraints of my economic capability, and my own knowledge and skills. How far does one go in making lifestyle changes and sacrifices? It's difficult at best determining what is and what is not justifiable when there is so much conflicting information floating around.

er... talking of making unscientific assumptions...

"A great deal of the Green movement uses Global Warming as the horse to ride for whatever their pet beliefs were prior to Global Warming"

Maybe the irony was intentional?

My fuel milage dropped a solid 26% with passing of a law in my state that now requires all gasoline sold must contain 10% ethanol year round.

How can a 30% increase of fuel usage be green?

I have spent a little time looking for "facts" about the "Carbon Footprint" cost per unit of ethanol but have had very little luck finding anything other than fuzzy buzz-word filled math. So here is a question, how much corn does a farmer need to grow to be energy self-supporting? This includes everything from tilling the soil all the way through to putting ethanol back into his tractor. If ethanol can not support its own production then from an energy stand point there is nothing green about it. With the drop in fuel milage that most people see using ethanol does nothing to support reducing our dependance on fossil fuel but increases it.

My coworker claims he has lost 10% fuel efficiency with the addition of ethanol. That seems like it could make sense. 10% reduction in power = 10% reduction in mileage. I can by that.

However 30% drop in mileage from removing 10% just seems like to much. What do you drive?

I just started paying attention to my mileage again since I had this discussion with him. Have not been through a tank to calculate my mileage yet. I am interested to see the results.

My vehicle is the Ford 2006 F-150, 4.6L. I take my truck into the dealer every 3-4 months for it's routine maintenance so it is kept it top running condition. Being the data collecting fellow I am I record then reset my trip odometer every time I fill up and compute my fuel mileage. During the warm weather months I use to average 18 mpg now I average 13mpg.

I drive 40 miles a day to get to and from work with much of the drive being on a four lane fairly level road at a steady 60mph (I do use cruise control) so I have had plenty of time to collect and verify my data. I have even taken my truck into the dealership for a diagnostic check-up as well as to the local motor vehicle DEQ and everything checks out OK. So if my driving hasn't changed and my truck hasn't changed but the gas has, by the process of elimination the problem is the gas. To be sure that it was not "Bad gas" I have fueled up at three different stations a Shell, Chevron and ARCO for at least three consecutive fill up's to ensure that residual gas from one station did not effect the others........ end result still only get 13 mpg +/- 0.2mpg.

...if my driving hasn't changed and my truck hasn't changed but the gas has, by the process of elimination the problem is the gas."

Not necessarily; and not necessarily, that nothing else has changed—for example:

• Tire inflation pressure has significant effect on MPG
• Headwind is major factor
• Cargo Load factors whether suspended or towed
• Variations in idling time...including stationary engine running during mechanical service (such "loss" of fuel, often substantial, by repair shops being something of which people generally do not take notice).
• Failure or delay of choke kick down or (in your FI engine) transition from rich mix at Full-Open mode (cold start) to Part-Throttle mode (PTCruise)...for any number of reasons, including EGR circuit sticking or malfunction.

...and,

• You're taking it to a dealership more or less quarterly
• In general, such frequent service buys nothing
• (And, contrary to common logic, 40-per-day highway miles tends to reduce service frequency requirements)
• And dealership service departments, except for warranty work or when absolutely necessary for technical reasons, are far and away (and without exception) the least reliable, least "safe" places to entrust a vehicle for service work.
• (Given the abnormal and unnecessary frequency that you are placing your truck at "dealer risk," odds are better than even that a fault (or even damage) will have been introduced by dealership service technician haste, laziness, or error.)

All that said, the drop from 18 (+/-) to 13 (+/-) is more than marginal; and, with virtual certainty, not the result of fuel alone. In other words, your first instinct should tell you that perhaps the vehicle has, or has been given, a defect that was not there before...and that the fault could well be as a result of mechanic error during service.

You should start a "case" with dealer (and, if necessary, with manufacturer) and have that "substandard" mileage problem diagnosed and checked out...and don't let them bamboozle you with statements about blended fuels. Be prepared to get "second opinions" in the (not-unlikely) event you meet dealer soft-soap resistance or flimflammery. Also, be alert for fault symptoms which can indicate introduced faults, for example: pinging while driving on a mountain road or under tow load could indicate that a tech inadvertently reset ignition static timing from correct to incorrect setting (something that does happen with Ford engines).

A final word: If, as it seems in your case, absolute vehicle dependability is crucial (say, in the performance of your work), your money would be far better invested in a second, back-up vehicle...than invested in the bottom line of a car dealer...doing unnecessary or "customer-feel-good" work. Or a leasing or renting arrangement at favorable terms.

While your reply is very well thought out it is not the case for my vehicle.

The typical "service" consists of pluging into my trucks data port located in the cab and checking the engine via the on-board sensors. Most items such as the brakes hoses, wiring harness and electrical connections are visually checked. Air pressure in the tires is checked and adjusted if needed.

The only thing done each service that is invasive is the oil change and I always check the level myself and monitor for oil leaks.

As for changes in driving habits/conditions there has been very little and my averages are based on more than 16,000 miles driven in this truck with less than 50 miles having been driven by other people.

The short of it is that my truck is mechanicaly sound.

Another bit of info is my girlfriend drives a 2000 Jeep Cherokee for the past 4 years. She until recently held an average of around 22mpg but has dropped to around 2mpg. Her drop in mileage is not as severe as mine but she also fuels up in Washington half of the time were she gets ethanol free gas.

Granted I have not conducted any great amount of research on how ethanol effects fuel mileage but when I look at my drop in mileage, my girlfriends drop in mileage and hear the complains of other drivers at the pumps on how they have seen a drop in mileage, I am left with the general conclusion that ethanol is the problem.

Now as for the scam..... I hear in the national news that the demand for gas has gone up which is why the price has gone up but later in the broadcast they say Americans are driving less because of higher fuel prices. So riddle me this...... How can demand go up if people are driving less? Driving less should mean the less fuel is being used but that is not what is being reported.

Richard, thank you for your reply and clarifications about your car; it is good to eliminate the ponder-able before looking for more imponderables. Your riddle--let's accept some level of validity in its premise, large mileage reductions due to ethanol content--subsumes so may possibilities that it's hard to express all concisely in one post; or even know where to begin. (I'm thinking about computer calibration, class actions, political special interests (as per my post below)...and so on, in addition to mechanical explanations...any one, or more together, of which might play a part.) So, in hopes of eliminating more imponderables, two questions first come to mind:

• If you have acquaintances (directly or by hearsay) in Washington, what is the situation there? In areas of that state, if any, where ethanol mixing is required, are people there complaining of the same radical reductions in fuel mileage? (I know that here in California people accept a moderate decrease in mileage, but I have heard of no outcry about radical decreases.) Just how ubiquitous is the level of complaint in your state?
• What is the volumetric capacity of your car's engine...cylinder count and liters...is it a "large" or "small" engine? (You might have said already but, please, humor me.) What about your friends having the same problem? How do the cars of complaining friends there compare, in this respect, to yours?

(The idea behind my line of questioning is, ultimately, to try to identify a "scope" for the problem; and to determine some degree to which the problem is addressable/controllable at the individual level. From there it might be needful to go to a higher, finger-pointing level, that is: to explore the possibility that manufacturers, government, or the courts have a part to play..... But we're not quite there, yet.) Thanks for patience and persistence.

• If you have acquaintances (directly or by hearsay) in Washington, what is the situation there? In areas of that state, if any, where ethanol mixing is required, are people there complaining of the same radical reductions in fuel mileage? (I know that here in California people accept a moderate decrease in mileage, but I have heard of no outcry about radical decreases.) Just how ubiquitous is the level of complaint in your state?
• What is the volumetric capacity of your car's engine...cylinder count and liters...is it a "large" or "small" engine? (You might have said already but, please, humor me.) What about your friends having the same problem? How do the cars of complaining friends there compare, in this respect, to yours? As to the first part I can only say I "hear" people (people being those I chat with at the pumps while fueling up but don't know personaly or professionaly) complain about reduced fuel mileage, I can only confirm my vehicle and my girlfriends vehicles performance changes. Unfortunately for this discussion my parents who live in Washington do not track their mileage as close as I do but they have not said anything about getting less mileage though they have complained about the cost. As to the second part my truck has a 4.6 liter V8 and the girlfriend has a 4.0 liter V6. I would ASSUME that the larger engine the more dramatic the loss of mileage would be which is one possible reason why my girlfriends Jeep has not seen the same reduction I have.

Well, I threatened to do a comparison and I did.

The results are mixed (no pun intended). Last year we had 100% gasoline. I ran my car on I95 at a speed of 67 mph with the windows up and AC off. Ambient temperature was 88°. Road surface was asphalt. No passengers. Cruise control kept a steady speed and Florida is well known as a flat state.

My car yielded 31.8 mpg running on 93 octane gas (no ethanol).

Yesterday I repeated the experiment after having run several tanks of 10% ethanol in the car, so the car has reached steady state.

I ran the car under the same basic conditions and temperature. I did have a passenger this time. I expected to see a drop in economy of about 3-4%. I did not.

My car yielded 32.2 mpg running 93 octane with 10% ethanol.

Obviously, something else is unaccounted for. The only things different this time was I had added 15,000 miles to the cars odometer (now has 28,600 miles) and a new set of tires. The new tires have a slightly harder rubber, which should reduce rolling resistance.

The other unknown is how my car compensates for ethanol in the gas. The engine management unit is pretty sophisticated and I don't know what it is doing. Also, my car is a 2004, 3.6 liter, 400 hp sports car, so it isn't your normal passenger car by design.

Sill, this is puzzling. My guess is that ethanol probably does cost about 3% loss in mpg, but the difference is lost in the noise by other unaccounted variables that prevent a useful test.

To do this right requires a test track, steady state conditions, and careful work to really document the difference.

As they say, your mileage may differ. Why, I don't know, but if you really experience that large of a drop you should be pounding on the manufacture for an explanation. I would think that something is horribly wrong, but only they would know or know how to find out.

Good luck!

Thanks for the long winded answer:) Your answer is very good.

I was just using the poor reporting of the media as anecdotal evidence to support MY observed reduction in fuel mileage thus supporting my position that ethanol in gasoline is more scam than green. Of course my view of what is green may vary from others.

See my other reply (post #63). My car's mpg difference is not measurable and lost in the noise. I really think you have something wrong with your truck if there is such a drastic change. Or maybe you might have overlooked something?

Ask yourself, what else has changed?

I agree with you that the evidence presented so far does not make a good case for ethanol.

"...passing of a law in my state that now requires all gasoline sold must contain 10% ethanol year round."

Hmm! Given that your neighbor to the south mandates "winter" levels at 5.6% (as recently reported on TV news), that law really does have the aroma of scam...as in, either, tax scam or special interest scam.

If it were Washington to the north, one might suspect any of:

• The use of pulp by-products (western slope) in alcohol production.
• Use of grain produce (eastern-slope plains) in grain alcohol production.
• An indirect way of double taxing gasoline.
• An indirect way of enhancing beer, wine, and spirits tax revenue.

An alternative technical rational for such a law in such a place as Oregon (given its history of "peculiar" legislation) is clearly not clear to be seen.

I don't want anyone to think I'm Pro Ethanol, I'm not.

But what we have here is "Green" is what ever you want it to be.

To the farmer, corn is green

To the oil producer, farming wastes too much and is not 'Green'

I think we all were led to believe that if we add 10% alcohol, we'd reduce or need for overseas oil by 10%. but it looks like they might as well have added 10% water, the result in our mileage would be about the same... ( just kidding here, no need to start a whole new discussion.)

Ethanol has its place during the winter to keep our fuel lines from freezing up so in that sense I support it's use but it should be limited to that role and in limited concentrations.

Normally I don't go for conspiracy theories but I think the oil companies and those that invest in oil futures deliberately lead honest politicians astray and or bribed the dishonest ones. Ever since I was a kid I can remember my parents gripping about how their fuel mileage dropped in the winter due to the ethanol being added in the winter months, So the effects of ethanol was no big secret, well at least to those of us in the northern cold climates................................

The short of it is we have been frigging scammed and the frigging liberal eco-Nazi's are too blind to see it, those with money are to greedy to care which leaves poor saps like me to pay for it.......ARHGGGGGGGG..... sorry for th rant.

Green is the new mantra of the marketing executive and has more to do with "green back dollars" than anything environmental.

check out www.vodka360.com The worlds first Eco Luxury Vodka.

Waddya mean, do the research? This here isn't research?

The point of ethanol is that it is a renewable energy source, not that it reduces green house gases. It would be of reducing our oil dependence. Some people use "Green" when talking about sustainable resources or other solutions that have to do with the environment; Recycling for instance. The farmers and the commodity brokers saw the future of ethanol in corn, even though there are much better sources for ethanol as Frefylte mentioned. Has to do with money more than science. Some think, to kill two birds with one stone, make ethanol from garbage.

I've read this article today. There is a short section devoted to ethanol issue. I can't say for a while wheter or not I agree with its content. Of what I'm sure a half truth is worse than even a complete lie.

It depends upon the definition of "green". Ethanol is a renewable fuel, using solar energy, which is CO2 neutral. It takes more to get the same distance that gas gets. It takes more energy to make than gasoline. It is said to help prevent engine knock and is safer than lead or MBTE. The use of corn creates a shortage of corn and raises the prices of everything dependent on corn. Refusal to allow importation of excess Brazilian ethanol is stupid. Not using sorghum, switchgrass or some better suited plant, even one genetically engineered, is shortsighted and irresponsible. Any reduction in pollutants is good. To those who think CO2 is a pollutant - you emit about 2.5 lbs of CO2 per day just by breathing, so stop breathing!

Burning ethanol is cleaner than gasoline. Growing the plants to make the ethanol removes about as much CO2 as is released in combustion. There is a Federal law from the 1930's which requires all vehicles to use petroleum-based fuel. That is why ethanol is always blended with oil-based fuel. [Courtesy of the Big Oil lobby.] Brazil uses pure ethanol fuel. GM builds cars in Brazil that run on pure ethanol, but it is illegal to import those cars to the U.S.

The saving from hybrids does not make up for the increased cost as yet. I think a plug-in electric vehicle with an onboard steam engine powered generator is an ideal solution. Modern designs of steam engines run cleaner and are more efficient than internal combustion engines and are capable of being built to use any liquid or gaseous fuel. E-mail -beesidemeusa@yahoo.co.uk - and ask about steam-electric cars for more info

We discussed a lot of this in a thread called "Worlds First Renewable Gasoline". Granted, it is a long and meandering thread.

/Ari (Orpheuse)

Ethanol is defined by the EPA as a renewable fuel. Here's definition of renewal fuels and why required.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/index.htm

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420f07062.htm

I may not have all the facts but the US governments choice to force 10% ethanol for use in all pump gas appears to work in favor of the oil refineries and against the consumer. They can now sell less refined fuel with lower octane. The octane can be increased with the addition of high octane ethanol. The ethanol contains less BTU per volume so you will see a decrease in MPG.

Their are so many opinions on the environmental advantages / disadvantages that I don't know what to think.

Wow, I didn't think I would get this much response. Thanks for the input everyone.

So, it seems safe to say that there are benefits and disadvantages to ethanol in gas, but no body knows all the hidden costs and this issue is clouded by the political and corporate world. And if we are to say it is green or not would depend on your persecutive, background, your definition of 'green' and what you include in your calculations. Green seems to mean it is better for the environment, but this definition is still rather vague and I don't like how it is abused.

So, if we burn a cup of Gasoline and a cup of E10, and we can say the Ethanol mix burns cleaner. But, if we add in the refining and processing costs and the loss in MPG it becomes less clear which is cleaner and which is better in the end. Now if we add in the fact that oil is non-renewable and corn is renewable than we can say Ethanol is again better for the environment because it is renewable and burning oil takes away from our supply for the future of plastics, space travel, etc.

But, again there are other issues and costs that come into play, including money, heath, environmental damage and the increase in the cost of food. So if we factor in everything, which is better? Well, maybe we can't say for sure because we don't know all the costs and how everything interrelates. We also don't know if the problems with Ethanol can be fixed by future development such as was stated above, by using a better bio source than corn.

I remember reading an article by the CBC about a study done by the Canadian government that concluded that ethanol is not a lot better but the details are missing.

And if you want to read a horror story here is one. I have read up on the dead zones and they are definitely not good, but the cause of this dead Zone was not directly due to ethanol but agriculture and fertilizers.hose links posted by others and maybe it will clear things up for me because right now I still think that we should make the switch to electric and if anything, ethanol is just slowing this switch.

Sure is an interesting discussion that we have going and as engineers we need to look at the data and leave the politics out of the equation.

In all of the discussions that I have seen, the only crop mentioned is corn; we need to have a hard look at alternative crops that out produce corn. Enter the Jerusalem Artichokes; they have the capabilities of a yield of up to 1,200 gallons of ethanol per acre.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/394475/ethanol_part_3_information_about_producing.html?cat=27

Now as a side benefit this amazing plant grows in the arid wilds of upper desert areas like the test plots located about 70 miles from Gillette Wyoming. Now this land could produce an energy crop that is second to none in sugar production from "junk soils". This is a self-seeding crop also as the small tubers that get through the separation process when harvesting. The farmer just furrows the rows back and there is next years crop, no need to purchase expensive and genitally manipulated seeds from big brother.

There is more on this plant also, it has been demonstrated that it transforms the soil into row crop soil, this takes from 5 to 10 years but it does happen. It accomplishes this with an enzyme it produces; just what the mechanics is that does this I do not know so here is what happened. When harvesting the fields the farmer was following the harvester inspecting what was left over as far as tubers when he started acting strangely, jumping up and down saying "look at this". Well I hot trotted it over to him as I thought something was amiss in the harvesting. He held up a couple of handfuls of soil and said "earthworms, we have earthworms". To an engineer that did not mean much but to him it was his sign that the soil was transforming because he has never seen an earthworm there.

Now to top off the benefits of the JA's is that they do not require the pesticides and chemicals that are required by such crops as corn. This is one of the most beneficial aspects to the Jerusalem Artichokes being utilized as an energy-producing crop. There is no other plant to my knowledge that can come close to them.

To conclude here is a plant that in my estimation that can assist in making the United States energy self sufficient and as a side benefit produce new row crop land that will then be able to produce food products after a short time period.

I would think that in circles like this one there are discussions about using other plants, the sugar Beet is a reasonble canidate as well. From what I see corn gets the lime light because there are a lot of US farmers that already have the equipment and knowledge for growing and harvesting corn.

Your JA crop I would think will require a little more testing and controls put in place before is is widely used. In your statement you describe the JA as "This is a self-seeding crop", as we have painfully discovered in the past the introduction of non-native life into an area can have negative impacts later on. A self seeding crop would pose a potential risk if not properly managed.

Sorghum has been used for making a sweet syrup similar to molasses. It grows under drier conditions than corn. Shoot some sugar cane DNA into it to increase the sugar content and it would also make a good replacement for corn.

Okay,

Simply put... Any fuel that makes carbon dioxide or worse byproducts, including Ethanol (Heat, carbon dioxide, water vapor) is going to contribute to the current bubble statistic which is 228 PPM higher than normal atmospheric carbon dioxide current in the atmosphere as we speak. Venting Methane at oil and gas wells is 25 times worse i.e. the resultant is that it make 25 times more pollution to NOT to burn it than to burn it by flaring it both at the distileries that make Ethanon and at the oil wells that produce oil; or use it in the form of "Natural Gas" or "Compressed Natural Gas" in the furnaces and ovens of private or commercial users.

It would seem that most of the controversy around ethanol and CO2 and methane production or burning of same misses the point. We are all of us addicted to carbon energy that took millions of years to rot plant matter and compress it underground to distill it into a form that we are now dependant on. We are all of us addicted to the byproduct of solar energy stored in carbon form plant matter, which we call oil or distilled Ethanol. We are trying to make mega barrels of distilled carbon Ethanol to mitigate that mistake. The process is far less effient than the natural process that took millions of years to produce that form. Why are we fighting against nature, in a loosing battle, for this energy? In logic - the more "Via's" the less succesful the potential outcome. There are so many vias to produce Enthanol - that the politicians have jump aboard and rubberstamp Ethanol - the greatest scam of the Eco-age!

Direct use of the same solar energy that created oil over millinea can be directly transformed into electricity or scavenged from solar made wind to make storable energy that does not pollute - no matter the inefficiency's.

So, on this thread I ask you: "Are we engineers or are we otherwise oriented? Has anyone else done the math on this so called "issue?"

For myself, though I lack the financial means to carry through, I have discovered that solar energy hidden in ocean currents can generate electricity. I have discovered that thin film solar cells can make ten times more electricty than current forms. I have discovered that wind energy in Wind Zones 3 and 4 can be cost effective ( and are making bloody fortunes for the like of Exxon and others by making cheap electricity to pump out formerly too deep to be cost effective shut down wells ) I have discovered that during the day it is cheaper to open the mains from my electric utility provider and use natural gas to power my own gas pwered generator during peak hours. . . etc. Anyone out there ever stand on a desk top and wonder about thinking outside the Ethanol box or the Dead Poets Society?

There are more than just CO2 considered to be green house gases, methane having more of an effect than CO2.

It seems that no one when discussing global warning ever brings in the statistics of the other gases, nitrous oxide, methane or fluorocarbons.

Hi, Anonymous Hero!

This is a thanks for shining the light of calm, scientifically-posed questioning on the seeming rush to global panic about climate variations, which I have never liked because it is mob and glib and flies in the face of too many questions arising from studies in a whole rainbow of professional engineering disciplines for the pat answers the current fad supports. The moving towards conclusions in this area is very far from being finished.

[Get me a soap-box here! ]

As a group of professionals, we are supposed to be constrained by our profession to calmly evaluate the data and just as even-handedly make observations without flying into or backing a political stance. Your post is a reminder of that responsibility. GA.

This is the alternative to politically magnetic attraction for scientific research: Rather than jumping aboard the panic --or any-- train, let's use our special energy to keep looking for data and let the data do the talking while keeping the editorializing to a minimum. Let the data evaluate itself and focus its attention on step-by step remediation only where it makes a significant difference, not where popular energy dictates. Keep the passion at a distance.

There is an additional danger when very much attention becomes focused on the latest popular worry. It's a tendency to start blinkering our research around other important considerations about being the only mainly sentient species on our planet. And there are other --at least, equally-- important areas of research we recognize as needing to be addressed. For example:

The need to evaluate our positioning as a species in modifying global conditions is as important from the view of other disciplines as well, notably ecological changes our species creates, which could seriously hamper our ability to survive as a species if the food chains that supply our global nutritional needs are meaningfully disrupted. We have been required to recognize that entire species that have been food staples have diminished or disappeared due to unregulated over-harvesting of both them and the species they depend upon for feed. What data can be accumulated to study and practical intercessions instituted to remediate these changes? Is there a human contribution that might assist in ameliorating them? Where is the 45 trillion dollars for addressing that question?

Regardless of causes and ameliorating effects that probably mean we as a species have to try to influence global changes, we have recognized that the earth is experiencing warming trends over the past thirty or so years that may very well cause the rising of coastal water levels and survival of other species on the planet. Where is the 45 trillion dollars being spent to move populations inland, study and support species survival through the changes, and change our transportation corridors to places above flood levels should that occur? (Will using our cars less support any of these activities? Blinkering.)

Some vulcanologists have theorized that the Yellowstone cauldron may be nearing eruption size. Where is the 45 trillion dollars being spent to either create a human intervention that would minimalize the potential global catastrophic damage that eventuality would bring, or to move populations away from it?

While there currently is enough food in the world to adequately feed the entire human population, people all over the world are not only going hungry, they are actually dying from starvation. Does the availability of food address human comfort? Does it reduce aggressive and antagonistic nature between cultures? How can equitable food distribution be accomplished? Where is the 45 trillion dollars being spent to answer those questions and find ways of evening out the available food distribution so that we all as members of this supposedly thinking species can receive a good nutritional diet?

The one area that I have seen being investigated by a small section of the engineering community and that affects our well being as a species is the sub-prominent search for alternative energy sources to supplement -and eventually replace- our traditional dependence on non-renewable resources.

Other than the artificially created rising cost of using what we now have and how it pressures the economic well-being of our variously distributed human societies, the use of non-renewable resources calls out for remediation because it is by definition a limited-capacity solution to a long-term situation: that of human use of electricity and heat sources.

Some of our current solutions, such as atomic energy, are only interim because they present pollution risks of their own that we have not found solutions for. I think 45 trillion dollars might go a fair way towards funding viable solutions for atomic energy waste disposal and alternatives to finite resources.

My point is that in the light of all the extremely important questions we must address as a sentient species, mob behaviour such as band-waggoning of any nature is neither an engineering nor productive approach. But it is human, and we have to recognize it as the danger it has always posed as a hindrance to straightforward scientific investigation such as that evidenced by your blog's dispassionately showing a history of global carbon dioxide presence, without trying to draw dramatic conclusions with it.

Let's not get sucked in to becoming a part of the mob. Let's get to a point where the necessity you addressed of pouring cold water on the heat of politicality becomes unnecessary because the kinds of considerations you pointed out were already well-established in the minds of the entire engineering profession due to an even-handed and dispassionate investigation into the climate change phenomenon.

Mark

Tinker65 - You said "Any fuel that makes carbon dioxide or worse byproducts, including Ethanol (Heat, carbon dioxide, water vapor) is going to contribute to the current bubble statistic which is 228 PPM higher than normal atmospheric carbon dioxide current in the atmosphere as we speak." This presumes that CO2 is a pollutant, which it is not. You emit about 2.5 lbs of CO2 per day just by breathing. I doubt you want to stop that CO2 emission. Or do you want to be taxed for breathing? Then what is to be done to those who cannot pay the breathing tax? Are they to be stopped from breathing in the name of "Saving the Planet"?

The carbon stored in growing plants is released when they are burned as fuel, but the new crop of growing fuel plants absorbs that CO2 and give us oxygen to breathe. So in general ethanol, if produced using ethanol, would be very carbon neutral.

Solar energy has several drawbacks. When you need light at night there is no solar power. You would have to cover about half the land area with solar panels to replace just the other forms of generating electricity. Storing the amount of electricity made during the day for use at night is prohibitively expensive. The solar panels are also very expensive.

Solar energy is in plants, coal, oil and running water as well as wind and ocean currents. Building a wind generator farm that will withstand a category 5 hurricane, or any ocean-based one that will, is also costly. If you can make your own electricity with NG cheaper than the grid, then the utility is gouging you.

If you have been on CR4 very long, you will have seen that there are a lot of people thinking outside of the usual ethanol box and outside of all kinds of energy boxes. The hard part is coming up with something that is economical, practical and will produce enough energy. If you carry the views of the environmental extremists to a point that matches their stated positions, the remaining few thousand people on Earth will live as vegans, have no fire, use no animals and thus have little impact on the environment. I'm sure that most here reject that kind of future, but those types of environmentalists have far too much influence on politicians who want their votes. As practical people and as engineers we can see what will work, try different things, and find some solution that may not be perfect, but one that will work.

Tagnan,

You make a good point about storing solar energy at night.

Batteries: Right now the Lithium Ion battery system which patent for the best so far invented is owned and being sat upon by Toyota, is the way to go. The Bay Area Rapid Transit system has a bounty on any Lithium Ion battery with up to 50% storage life. It has a set aside division that does nothing but solder in these batteries into direct current discharge banks, in special warehouses all along BART's tracks. BART charges them at night when the commercial electric rate is lowest. It discharges them through controllers during peak daylight/day rate periods of time.

It has parking bays at its stations in which e-Cars can park free of charge and charge their batteries free of charge from 6:00 PM till 11:00 AM (last I checked). All they ask is that one understands they will pull back 30% of auto batteries stored energy from 11:01 AM till 5:59 PM in exchange for this free charging service. If your car is parked there and you leave at 6:00 PM they'll be charged 70% full, in other words.

The point is: Electric Vehicles 20 million strong can right now store all the peak load waste of premium energy during the day that is wasted at night by conventional electric utilities just to keep firebricks hot enough not to warp and break by rapid temperature swings. Photo Voltaics can not only head off the proliferation during peak summer hours for more and more cheap coal fired power stations and natural gas turbine generators to avoid brown outs, but its excess can be stored in ones car or other battery systems to "normalize" peak load periods and the excess costs... Enough that a major energy using transportation, (for one example) is filling several warehouses a year with old, used batteries, because the economics are right. Those same warehouses are now being retrofitted with photo voltaic on their roofs and the roofs of their free car parks, as well. Peak load economics is what drives their program, not environment, albeit they never miss the PR chance to brag about being pro green.

Whether one "believes" that mankind in its billions can or does affect the atmosphere is secondary to the fact that carbon energy took millions of years to make and now the cheap, easy to extract carbon energy is disappearing; leaving gradient harder and dirtier to harvest energy. On the other hand, solar electric energy is free, clean, can be collected efficiently enough for cost effectiveness over a relatively short investment period (average 8 year break even) on 85% of the earth... And one does not need to worry about the negative impact to future generations, if the environmental nay sayers are wrong, to use solar.

In my heart of hearts I believe EV's are the best guess way to go. And on a final note; the sarcasm and vitriolic acid by self-proclaimed objective engineers about environmental stupidity is far more obsessive than I feel about my go EV decision, trust me. Meanwhile I would like to be able to go out in the morning or evening and not see smog or have my eyes burn and sneeze from the stink of diesel fumes and polution up wind from Waco where TXU has its coal fired generators for this city plex or while out on the highway while driving in stop and go traffic on the highways. No biggie, you know?

While all of this will possibly "get rid of the oil crisis", at least temporarily. I afraid that even with the problem of where the fuel is coming from, we still haven't really dealt with the problem of carbon dioxide (CO2), and, even if the emission is water (H2O) imagine a Californian traffic jam. We are trading one hydro-carbon, greenhouse gas - petroleum, for another. The Arabs may not profit by it but our goal is to 'go green'. The only really 'green' energy is solar, and each city needs it's own solar tower.

It is not going to happen because the oil companies won't allow it. They need to be 'in the loop', especially where money is concerned. I suggest that Hali-Burton 'get the drop' on the electric game' by erecting solar farms and solar towers. That's the only way it will get done.

/Ari (Orpheuse)

From much investiagation i have some facts, opinions and reflections to offer:

On an energy normalized basis there is more CO2 released from burning ethanol than octane. The upstreams costs associated with gasolin production are flawed and is perceived by most critics to be the greener alternative.

Using Ethanol, destroys your car as it has a lower heating capacity and doesnt allow the longer carbnon chains it is mixed with to burn efficiently.

If we did burn gasoline, there would be a larger crisis in the supply / demand curve and prices would rise to the point you may question why you didnt purchase that damn ethanol product.

Most long term forecast show that ethanol demands will soon be too high for us to sustain its use as a viable energy source will be questionable.

We are on the brinks of an energy revolution and I am completely surprised that there aren't more cars on the road like George Clooneys Tango T600. Large oil corporations and corrupt world trade organizations control the world we live in. There economical values have become more important than the US economy, the depreciated middle class and the well being of the world on which we live.

"On an energy normalized basis there is more CO2 released from burning ethanol than octane. The upstreams costs associated with gasoline production are flawed and is perceived by most critics to be the greener alternative."

This claim against ethanol is occurring more frequently as the weeks go by. I'm beginning to see the term "renewable resource" as BS! With evidence proving gasoline less harmful to the environment as ethanol, why is renewable better? It becomes worse because it's renewable. There is a limitless supply of it, with a limitless supply of greenhouse gases to coming along with it. To make it limitless requires more land for growing crops and existing farms to divert from food crops. It might be an acceptable crutch, but too much effort is being put towards it. It's a relief to hear about cars like the Volt and the next generation Prius with larger batteries. In combination with hydroelectric, solar, wind, and ocean power we will be able to move forward with significantly less environmental impact.

Also, fossil fuel "is" renewable! It just takes millions of years instead of a few months to make. Maybe millions of years from today, new life forms on Earth will be burning human oils (instead of dinosaur oils) with the same dilemmas we face today?

I know WHOI. I've actually spent much time next door at Captain Kidd killing brain cells. Though I'm not too keen on all the 'ol timers who hang out in the area. I was out fishing in Woods Hole harbor and a few old local guys out drinking beers in a small lobster boat came over and told me I don't belong there and told me leave and flashed a gun?

I never realized CO2 was also a threat to the oceans. I've been reading about the dead zones and the blame being on all the nutrient byproducts people have dumped.

In the air we breathe CO2 is quickly jumping toward 400ppm. It's effect on humans is very apparent at 10,000ppm. I wonder what subtle effects occur at 400ppm? Is it going to dumb us down to the point where society can no longer function? If it didn't exist currently in our environment would we be able to function better?

I don't understand why we don't follow in Brazil's footsteps. They run almost all of their cars off of sugar cane. They refine it and sell it. We have so much technology at our grasps but fail to use it. After the 1970's gas war we should have been thinking of new technologies for cars to run off of. Instead our politicians are too far up the oil companies asses to do anything about this. The EV1 ran 100% off of electricity and GM recalled them because the oil companies were complaining that they couldn't compete with it. Instead 99.9% of Americans will continue to shell out their weak $'s to make the oil companies even more rich then they already are. I won't be buying any new gas cars I would rather wait for the electrics to come out.

Guest - Where in the US do you grow sugar cane? A tiny bit in Florida, a tiny bit in Hawaii and a tiny bit in Puerto Rico. Brazil has a surplus of ethanol, but to protect the corn growers it cannot be imported to the US. The farm lobby has managed to get ethanol from corn subsidized and protected by the politicians so the farmers can make more money. Sorghum probably has more sugar than corn, but using sorghum is not subsidized and protected. Use some DNA from sugar cane and you could make an even more sugary sorghum. Sorghum will grow in poorer soil and drier soil than corn, but all the subsidies and protection are for corn to ethanol, which drives up food prices. Other crops than corn aren't covered and so are not used.

At present prices it is economical to make synthetic gasoline from coal too.

If we replace all gasoline and diesel cars with EVs how do you propose to make enough electricity? Have you seen the EVs being built and sold now? Two passengers, no AC or heat, a range of 50 miles for $38,000 to $40,000 and they look like toys. Electric cars are still a way off due to price, size and range problems. It may be a long wait for an electric car with the size, range, speed and convenience of say a Hyundai Tucson, at a comparable price.

Now an EV that carries its own generator on board to recharge the batteries as needed while driving would use some fuel and also would plug into the grid. The cleanest and most multi fuel power comes from external combustion using a small efficient steam engine to power the generator. About 80% of your driving is within 25 miles of home and is easily handled by the plug-in EV part of the car. The other 20%, all the unforeseen side trips and emergencies that come with life, the vacation trip, can be handled by running on fuel to keep the EV going. That saves 80% of the fuel used by an IC engine car to drive for the same purposes and distance.

For more on this concept e-mail - beesidemeusa@yahoo.co.uk - and ask about steam-electric hybrids [or if you are an EV purist ask about 'steam-electric extended-range EV']

You are correct, but not all ev's are tiny. The Tesla Roadster is a 100% electric sports car. Although it is pricey you get 200 miles on a single charge. Like I said it is a sports car so it is only a 2 seater but they are working on creating full sized vehicles. Another one is the phoenix motor cars facility (http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/index.php) they have a truck and suv option available. Feel free to check them out.

Still expensive and no details as to range, accessories, etc., for the Phoenix. Tesla has a bit more range, true, but it runs about $100,000. Not all of them look like toys, but most do. When EV's prices drop into the same number of months of income needed to buy them as IC autos and have the same range, size and convenience, then perhaps people will buy them. It may take decades of research to do that. The steam-electric hybrid idea could be built today and it wouldn't take long to put it into production. It would work until EVs became practical someday. I am not opposed to EVs. I just want one that costs what my present car did, has the size, range and convenience of my car and I have yet to see any EV like that or even close to that. And since I will not pay more for a "green" product, why should I pay more than twice as much for less car? The steam-electric is clean too and I wish I could buy one or build one.

who currently produces an electric -steam hybrid? I haven't heard of it until you mentioned it. I just want to get off of oil and drive something thats cool and gets rid of pollution but mostly keeps the $ out of foreign hands.

It's an idea that is not in production, yet. Easy to build one though, if you have enough money and are handy with tools. It would be easy for a company to produce one. The main problem is the overwhelming ignorance and prejudice concerning steam power. If you had one you could have it built to use any fuel you wanted and still use about 80% less fuel than an internal combustion engine and when running it would also be cleaner.

If you are rich enough to own an EV for short trips and a regular car for longer trips and are willing to put up with the inconvenience of switching back and forth, just to "drive something thats cool" and really only moves the pollution to the electric generating plant, then do it. Most people can't afford an EV costing $40,000 to $100,000 and afford a regular IC auto too.

"really only moves the pollution to the electric generating plant"

That's a misnomer. The internal combustion engine is about 22-25% efficient. Even when using gasoline for generating electricity it is nearly 60-70% efficient. That means you get better than two times the reductions in emissions with an EV.

An EV will convert stored electricity into power at the wheels at an efficiency of around 93% or better, so the net gain is still better than two times over a gas powered car.

The point is that it is not zero emissions with an EV. There are emissions somewhere.

"In practice, a steam engine exhausting the steam to atmosphere will have an efficiency (including the boiler) of 1% to 8%, but with the addition of a condenser and multiple expansion engines the efficiency may be greatly improved to 25% or better."

"The burner in a steam car, when properly designed, can be, and has been, as environmentally clean as the 2001 model gasoline powered cars. This, without any form of special pollution reducing gadgetry, none at all, it is inherent in the modern burner design."

"(www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml) shows that an internal combustion engine (ICE) only has an average efficiency of 12 %."

Copied and pasted from several sources, it is a fact that steam is more efficient than an IC engine and is naturally cleaner too. Using a steam engine to run a generator onboard an EV to keep the batteries charged once the initial charge from the grid is used up just makes sense. Such an extended-range EV would be cheaper to build and would still save about 80% over the fuel used by an IC auto. It would also be able to just up and go 400 miles if you needed to, without stopping 4-8 times for several hours of recharging.

Emissions from a steam engine are basically CO2, water and a bit of soot. The water is harmless and the soot and the CO2 are recycled by plants. CO2 is not a pollutant anyway, being non-toxic, odorless and something we emit when we breathe. IC engines are inherently polluting and waste fuel by using all those complex devices to reduce it.

With the steam-electric car you reduce fuel use by about 80%, reduce the emissions when it is using fuel, raise the efficiency and because you would recharge from the grid at night you don't have to build so many more electric generating plants, hydro, coal or nuclear. The reduced fuel use might even make using some biofuels economically feasible by reducing our use of oil fuels by nearly 80%. Now if we could get ethanol from some other crop than corn that would help.

I agree with you, but I really don't know enough about steam.

I think the 12% quote for an average engine is just that, average, which includes some pretty old cars and trucks. I have been seeing figures closer to the 22-24% for modern engines. Direct injection and modern engine management are making continued improvements.

I think that its fair to compare any EV technology with current and modern internal combustion engines, so I chose the higher numbers.

Anonymous Hero,

Your point about moving EV pollution to the power plants is well taken. However the ratio's still make gas or diesel engines two to three times less efficient than an EV. Ethanol power is worse still in that conventional engines and electricity are used to plant, harvest, convert and transport corn sugars into Ethanol and get it to the pumps. The best estimate is that the 30% shortfall in energy from corn to Ethanol is made up from fossil fuel sources; much like the 18 wheel truck transport shortfalls are only possible due to the efficiencies of the railroad transportation system that delivers the raw materials to make trucks and keep them on the road.

Ethanol from corn is far less efficient than several other ethanol sources as discussed in this special interest thread. EV's charged at night when the power companies must waste tons of energy just to keep the firebricks in their boiler systems from cracking; which fact still makes it the most cost effective and efficient way to store energy for use during the day, especially in a battery powered vehicle system, is my conclusion after years of study and practical application. There have been multitudes of speculation as to the motivations of major auto manufacturers as to their resistance to EV's or hybrids or any other non-standard auto technology. I submit that EV's have historically been correctly adjudged to be a disaster for after market parts divisions of all the auto manufactures. E-85 Ethanol powered, hybrids, hydrogen cars will be a major aftermarket revenue stream in keeping to their shareholders expectations, when or if manufacturers switch to any of them, however.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/general-motors

I have friends that are close to this project and have additional information, but it is an interesting read.

I like GM's idea with the hydrogen fuel cell car too. It is about time Big American Auto re-think their concepts and invest more in R&D. Although, it's not the perfect solution it is realistic and probably one of the easier solutions.

Basically the cost comes from getting and storing the hydrogen.

Here is a factsheet http://www.gm.com/explore/technology/fuel_cells/fact_sheets.jsp and you can get some good clips on youtube unvailing their hydrogen cars.

Similar to my independent idea about using a steam engine to run the generator. The IC people are firmly wedded to the inherently polluting IC engine which is mostly dependent on oil-based fuels. A steam engine can be built to use any liquid or gaseous fuel. It runs cleaner and more efficiently, with fewer moving parts. The steam cars used high pressure steam which is dangerous if you work on the car while running, but so is an IC engine when running. My idea is to use low pressure steam since it is only turning a generator. The high pressure boilers of Stanley Steamers and Doble never exploded, so that is another myth.

The Tesla can carry two people, your insurance card, registration and two sandwiches in the trunk. That car is so small that you literally sit rubbing elbows with the passenger.