Does the U.S. face dependence on foreign ethanol?
Well, not exactly,
but President Bush's current fascination with E85 fuel aside, problems with widespread adoption of high ethanol content
fuels go far beyond the lack of special pumps at your corner gas station-- the U.S. has an E85 shortage, and we're
importing ethanol from Brazil to make up the shortfall.The reason? Too much demand, and not enough supply, a conondrum that leads to shortages and high prices.
Oil companies that still use MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether to you chemists) to oxygenate gasoline are rapidly shifting to using ethanol instead, to avoid the public health hazard created by the additive (and the attendant lawsuits). While much of the U.S. already uses E10 blended gasoline, the East Coast and Texas region still depend on MTBE-blended fuel.
Unfortunately, U.S. ethanol production is running at capacity, and there isn't enough U.S. ethanol to replace all that MTBE. U.S. capacity will increase as new facilities eventually come on line, but that isn't solving this year's problem.
Already, ethanol prices have been driven high enough that E85 is selling for as much or more than gasoline, even though its energy content is lower (leading to comparatively lower fuel efficiency). Things will get worse before they get better, with CNN/Money reporting that the ethanol shortage will affect regions depending on it to replace MTBE... leading to high prices and possible fuel shortages on the East Coast and in Texas.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Dark Leth 4:06PM (2/23/2006)
Oh, yay, another thread where people can continually say "Ethanol is lower energy. ETH4N0|_ SUXXORZzZ!1!" Listen, chemically, ethanol may contain less energy, but is suited to be higher octane. You can use this octane rating to an advantage to creat more energy-efficient engines built around ethanols chemical properties.
As for this shortage, the problem could begin to be alleviated in the long run when we look at switchgrass/canola/various tall grass biomass mixtures that are much better for the environment and more energy-efficient to produce than corn ethanol. Right now, most of the ethanol hype is just political, not about saving the earth, our economy, or our wallets.
Reply
Paul 4:18PM (2/23/2006)
unless the us gets back into building neuclear plants the production of ethanol is not efficient. what burn oil to make ethanol? no. why burn coal if emmisions are a concern. ethanol is a net energy loss fuel unless neuclear is used.
Reply
Matt 4:40PM (2/23/2006)
Should this post be entitled, "Newsflash: Supply and Demand still relevant economic theory!"
Am I the only one who said, "so" upon reading this? Is the secret, underlying message that we're going to be gouged, and we should stick to fossil fuel, or something?
Politically, I'd rather send my money to Brazil than to the Middle East any day. That's that.
Reply
Craig Hartman 4:42PM (2/23/2006)
Good for those ethanol stocks
Reply
AutoWeblog.de 4:48PM (2/23/2006)
Headline of the day!
Reply
I. Prefertodrink Ethanol 5:13PM (2/23/2006)
Paul, it's "nucular", according to the Commander in Chief...
Dark, you hit the nail on the head about it being all political right now. But even with ethanol's octane advantage, can the mileage be made gallon-for-gallon equivalent to gas with engineering? Can you cite an unbiased source (difficult, I know, with anything as politicized as this) that provides any experimental data?
Reply
Dark Leth 5:23PM (2/23/2006)
Does ethanol taste that good? :P
Anyways, I know there was an UCLA study done about this, but off-hand, I do not have an unbiased study to base this off of. However, SAAB has a car out in Europe optimised for ethanol that gets better mileage than it's gasoline sibling. Search on autoblog for it - it's here.
I'll do some calling later this week and if I find anything, I'll submit it to Autoblog.
Reply
Gary 5:27PM (2/23/2006)
Maybe Brazil's Petrobas Oil buying into that TX refinery was their foot into the door for exports of their excess ethanol to the USA...don't blame Brazil for our own govenment's lack of initiative on ethanol because weren't we warned about this by dear old Jimmy Carter many moons ago...
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/02/04/business/news/19_56_162_3_06.txt
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/31249/story.htm
Reply
kap0w 5:45PM (2/23/2006)
One big difference between an ethanol shortage and a gas shortage - the US can plant more crops to turn into ethanol. It can't make more oil appear underground. The whole point of this exercise is that ethanol is renewable and we can make it. If we waited for the supply to be there before ramping the demand, nothign would ever happen.
Reply
Paul 6:14PM (2/23/2006)
ethanol is renewable except it takes energy to make it. it is politically correct to talk ethanol but no body is talking of the energy it takes to make it.
Reply
tbyron 6:25PM (2/23/2006)
C'mon Stuart, how about taking 3 deep breaths before hitting SEND?
Why the implication that importation of ethanol from foreign countries is such a bad thing? The problems with foreign oil dependence are tied to the percentage imported and the number of unstable and/or unfriendly countries from whom we do the importing.
Why the continual regurgitation of the bits about lower energy content from E85 while ignoring both the higher octane and the fact that the net result is less gasoline burned? Don't you think maybe we car people might appreciate a story on whether or not there is a PERFORMANCE benefit to E85 (see Saab's 310 hp 4-cyl for instance!).
Why the implication of blame on the ethanol producers for the SUDDEN elimination of MTBE? The legal depts of the big oil companies tell them to get the hell out of the MTBE business since their lackeys in Congress and White House won't give them a liability protection they sought...and its whose fault for disrupting supply lines?
Reply
Black03Marauder 6:32PM (2/23/2006)
Its still another alternative fuel that would require 10 years and trillions of dollars to implement...ick.
Do any of you know if anyone has ever just tried to just make gas from scratch? I've tried to find info on this with no success. All of I have managed to find is that its been done,and that might be bull.
Reply
Richard Warren 6:41PM (2/23/2006)
Oh thank you Paul for that insight. And what do we do with the spent rods and other waste?
That's Nuclear by the way.
I agree, it's political but it makes sense to look and use all the options.
The problem really is there is no real plan, never has been one, it's simply the paln of the moment.
As to buying on the market, that's fine but does little to end our dependence on foreign powers, and balance of trade issues.
Reply
Andrew 10:00PM (2/23/2006)
Ethanol gets 2035% worse real world mileage. This is simply a fact.
Consider GM and the federal government. Both spend large amounts promoting ethanol, but admit large fuel economy loss.
Alan Weverstad, executive director-environment and energy for GM, explained that a gallon of E85 simply produces less energy than gas.
First, GM, from URL
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0602080220feb08,1,3873188.story?coll=chi-news-hed
"So it takes more fuel to run a mile. Some might say 30 percent more, we're saying the mileage loss is 20 to 25 percent. But while you burn more fuel, you burn less petroleum," he said.
Next go to the official EPA fuel economy website, and look at cars such as the Chevy Tahoe, all are much worse on E85:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/bymakemodelNF.shtml
Ethanol has much less energy and higher octane. In theory the octane can make up some of the loss, but the problem is flexfuel vehicles also have to run on gas. The best way to take advantage of octane is to increase compression, but you can't do this because the car still has to run on 87 octane.
Someone please post real evidence of ethanol getting same real-world mileage. A one-off Saab research car or ethanol group does not count.
Reply
Andrew 10:02PM (2/23/2006)
oops, 20-35% worse. NOT 2035% worse.
Reply
Matt 10:43PM (2/23/2006)
Ethanol does not get "worse mileage". It's misleading to state it as such without qualifying the statement. It's simply got a lower caloric value. You have to burn more to release the needed energy. It's not like it's a bad or defective fuel. It's just that the bonds between atoms don't store quite as much energy as fossil fuel.
While that burning is taking place, the generation of pollution is generally slighly less. Meanwhile, the octane rating is higher, meaning you can run a higher compression and enjoy a more sporty engine.
All around, the difference is barely worth mentioning. So you need a 12 gallon tank instead of a 10 gallon tank. Is that really that bad? A gallon weights about 5 lbs. An extra 10 lbs with a full tank.
I never thought about it before, but maybe you could make more efficient engines with higher compression. You certainly have a more dramatic combustion event, which should result in a more complete burn, no?
The detractors to ethanol are barely detractors. Like I've said before, if we had a choice to pick, as a society, and we weren't dependent on the oil infrastructure, we'd pick ethanol in a heartbeat!
Reply
Andrew 12:13AM (2/24/2006)
Matt
Ethanol does indeed get worse mileage than gasoline in most real world cars. Mileage is defined as how far you can go on a given volume of fuel, and this actually makes sense because fuel is sold by volume.
The point is that ethanol has to be quite a bit cheaper just to break even for cost per mile. And as I've said before, ethanol is really much more expensive than it looks, much of the cost is taken by taxpayers.
You have to burn more to release the needed energy.
You say
"It's not like it's a bad or defective fuel. It's just that the bonds between atoms don't store quite as much energy as fossil fuel. "
That is the whole point of fuel - to supply energy. This is like saying "it's not a bad chainsaw, it just does not cut much wood".
Just saying you'd like to choose a technology does not make it viable. Technologies must be practical. Look at electric cars - for years California tried to force automakers to make electric cars. After 20 years and wasted billions they gave up.
Reply
Andrew 12:23AM (2/24/2006)
One important thing was left out of this article. Large tariffs (50 cents per gallon) keep cheaper foreign ethanol out of the US.
Basically there are three ways of getting ethanol:
1. Corn: Very expensive. Not competitive but propped with massive Taxpayer subsidies to by votes in farm states and to reward ADM lobbyist.
2. Sugarcane: Brazil can make ethanol this way, it is much more efficient because of climate. Their ethanol is much cheaper, but again big tariff.
3. Biomass, e.g. "switch grass": this has potential for being most efficient but is only in research phase. It might work, it might not, but right now it makes zilch.
For for the current ethanol crisis we can't import - remember the point is not to replace oil, it is to help farmers and agri-business. We can't increase our production fast enough. And switch-grass is just a dream. So we will get higher prices.
I suggest two things:
1. Get rid of the whole oxygenated fuel rule. It does not help much with modern cars.
2. Get rid of tariffs on foreign ethanol. Heck I think ethanol is a bad idea, but this would be a good thing for ethanol advocates, more supply, lower price, more ethanol used.
Reply
mike_in_dayton 10:48AM (2/24/2006)
fungible. folks, the word is fungible.
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20060219.html
definition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fungible
Reply
Paul 10:53AM (2/24/2006)
#13 Richard
Thanks for the spelling correction. Also, I think the spent "nuclear" rods will fit nicely up your butt.
Reply