Comments on: The Ethanol Farce

By: The Corner Office Blog - An entrepreneurs thoughts on business, personal finance and investing. » Blog Archive » Fuel Standards and Ethanol

Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14:44:03 +0000

[...] like the push for ethanol, even though I think it’s still a farce. If we can figure out a way to produce ethanol with a net energy gain, I’m all for it. I also [...]

By: Grant

Grant — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:38:38 +0000

Matt, to expand on your comment a bit, it is important to produce ethanol (or any other alternative fuel for that matter) cheaply without increasing the cost of another commodity as a byproduct. Using corn is a prime example. Use all the corn to produce ethanol and it drives food products up.

I like the biodiesel idea, and I think it’s the most practical way to go, but it would take a long time to standardize the fuel due to up front equipment requirements.

Thanks for contributing.

-Grant

By: Matt D

Matt D — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:19:05 +0000

The biggest reason that ethanol won’t work is corn. Corn is a highly ineffiecent way to create ethanol. Brazil uses sugarcane which in that country is readily available, easily grown, and breaks down in to ethanol much more easily. I guess the real crop that may turn out to work best in the US to make ethanol is actually switchgrass, who knew. Additionally, I think is more important to get the ethanol to be produced cheaply, which corn doesn’t really do well. If we had a choice between E85 for $1.50/gal vs. $3.00/gal, you would see this take off.

Also, I wouldn’t expect to see ethanol ever completely eleminate gas but in some places you can certainly see it help with gas prices. If you live in Kansas, drive to your local Casey’s General Store notice the 90 grade is made with 10% ethanol and is typically cheaper than the 87 grade which is all gas. I think this is where you will see it used more than in the E85 setup.

Finally, biodiesel will probably be the more likely play as an alternative resource. In the US, until Honda and GM start producing there highly efficient european diesel engines here in the US, we won’t see a change for awhile here. I think both are slated to have some sort of product here in 2009 or so.

Until then it’s go go gadget hybrid…by the way who killed the electric car?

By: Grant

Grant — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:34:13 +0000

Dong, it’s not the fuel efficiency of the cars themselves that presents the rub in the problem, nor does the size of the tank.

The problem comes in when you consider the overall net energy return of ethanol vs. gasoline.

For instance, how many gallons of gasoline does it require to produce a gallon of ethanol, and could that energy use be better served producing food than fuel?

Ideally, we’d like to see a positive net output of energy (i.e. it only requires 6 gallons of gasoline or ethanol to produce 10 gallons of gasoline or ethanol).

As for using electricity to provide locomotion, I agree, but remember that it takes an energy source to produce electricity. And is that energy source a clean and efficient one (comparing coal to natural gas to oil, etc…).

-Grant

By: dong

dong — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:18:28 +0000

I guess I’m not as concerned with the energy content as long it’s above a certain level. It’s not like E85 vehicles need to have these gigantic tanks that they outsize their gasoline counterparts. Really in the end though I think if we can find a sustainable environmentally friendly fuel that’s cheap to produce, I think we’ll figure out the rest. You can always use the electric grid as alternative method of fuel transportation for electric cars…

By: Grant

Grant — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:46:08 +0000

Hey Dong,

The energy content is typically measured in BTU’s per unit volume.

For instance, regular 91 octane gasoline delivers 125,000 BTU’s per gallon, where as ethanol only delivers 84,600 BTU’s per gallon.

I believe that to have a reasonable alternative to gasoline, we’ll need a naturally occurring resource other than petroleum that has a higher energy content than gasoline.

Thanks for chiming in!

-Grant

By: dong

dong — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:00:14 +0000

I’m not a huge ethanol either as it’s not a particularly efficient source of energy given the energy input required to grow corn to turn corn into ethanol. However, I’m confused by your statement that an alternative fuel needs have greater energy content than gasoline. What do you mean by that? Energy to weight ratio?

By: Jonathan C

Jonathan C — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:00:47 +0000

Grant,

I am a loyal Iowan, and couldn’t agree with you more. Here in Iowa, farmers and private investors are–for the moment–making a small fortune as a result of federally subsidized ethanol, but it can’t last in the long run because the science just doesn’t support it.

I strongly agree with your point that scientific research today is being driven by politics, and it is resulting in a lot of wasted effort, money, time, and energy. Not to mention higher taxes. As a general rule of thumb, if private money isn’t interested in developing a concept or market (in the absence of subsidies, that is), they *probably* have a good reason.

Jonathan

By: Money Blue Book

Money Blue Book — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:33:24 +0000

We’re not there in terms of our alternative fuel usage. But if you look at nations like Brazil that have transformed their entire fuel usage into ethanol and flex, it’s a do-able goal. It will take time and research though.

Corn is very inefficient for generating ethanol…sugarcane and straw cellulose are better, but corn has been getting more press coverage recently…not sure why.
-Raymond