TTAC on E85
TTAC on E85
Alternative Fools: E85
By Michael Karesh
June 19th, 2006 4,883 Views
The United States has pledged to kick the oil habit before. But this time we mean it. Better yet, we have a solution that doesn’t require any of that furrin’ hybrid and diesel technology: E85. Produced from corn and other products grown in good old American soil, this 85 percent ethanol blend enables American-as-apple-pie small block V8s to burn less gasoline than a Prius. If every car, truck, and SUV were E85 now, why we could tell the Arabs to shove it! So all good Americans should buy an E85-capable full-sized SUV TODAY! Actually, on second thought, maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to “go yellow.”
Brazil, poster child of the E85 movement, has farmed its way to energy independence. But the same solution won’t work so easily for the US. For one thing, Brazil produces ethanol from sugar cane, a much cheaper foodstuff than corn or anything else we can grow in the decidedly non-tropical Midwest. Perhaps global warming will lend a hand? In the meantime, every ethanol booster not wedded to corn interests cannot stop talking about switchgrass. Research indicates that an acre of panicum virgatum might yield three times as much ethanol as an acre of zea mays. But even if switchgrass proves a fruitful source of ethanol, its potential impact on US energy policy is minimal.
Americans are gas hogs. While 186 million Brazilians burn the equivalent of about 10 billion gallons of gasoline each year (40 percent of it ethanol), 296 million Americans burn 150 billion gallons of gasoline each year (3 percent of it ethanol). In other words, if America really wants to be like Brazil, we should cut gas consumption use by 90 percent. Hint: not many Brazilians drive full-size SUVs. Otherwise, we’ll need ten times as much ethanol as Brazil to match the Brazilian fuel mix.
Converting the entire U.S. vehicle fleet to E85 would require about twenty times as much ethanol as Brazil currently produces for domestic consumption. Guess what? America is already producing as much ethanol as Brazil, and will soon pass them to become the world’s largest ethanol producer.
To achieve full gasoline self-sufficiency, we could convert 140 million acres of farmland to switchgrass. That’s about twice the acreage currently devoted to corn and a landmass nearly the size of Texas. Once we use American coal to produce the electricity needed to convert the result to ethanol, we’re there! Or not. Devoting so much American soil to ethanol would send farmland and food prices soaring. This will make American farmers very happy, and anyone who has to buy food unhappy. We might have to starve millions to do it, but we’ll be able to feed our SUVs without foreign oil!
Alternatively, we could import ethanol. If Corn Belt congressmen would agree to cut the protective tariff, Brazil would gladly increase sugarcane production to help meet our needs. Brazil has plenty of space for more cane fields. What good does so much rain forest do anyone, anyway? No matter which route is chosen, this huge ethanol production expansion won’t– can’t– happen overnight. As part of his energy less dependence policy, President Bush has decreed that American ethanol production must double by 2012. If US gasoline consumption stops growing, by that date all US gas could contain five percent ethanol. Maintain this torrid growth rate, and by 2018, all American gas could contain ten percent ethanol.
Guess what? Virtually all vehicles on the road today can already burn ten percent ethanol, commonly known as “gasohol.” In other words, existing cars can probably use all of the ethanol we can produce through at least 2018. So why do we need new, E85-capable vehicles and new E85 pipelines and pumps in 2006? Well, they do seem to make Corn Belt congressmen and their constituents happy. They help GM deflect criticism. And, perhaps best of all, an E85 Tahoe gets a CAFE rating of 33.3 miles per gallon. You see, this rating is calculated based on the very shaky assumption that E85 (only 15 percent of which is gasoline) will be used half the time. As a result, GM can sell more V8-powered vehicles without incurring fines. Without this loophole, it would have to actually sell more fuel efficient vehicles if it didn’t want to pay up.
Of course, GM didn’t create this incentive. It’s just intelligently reacting to it. Congress, pressured by Corn Belt people and industries, created the incentive. But why does E85 make the Corn Belt so happy? Why not simply mandate more gasohol, which can be sold everywhere and used by everyone today? I have no idea. For some reason, no one seems to be talking about this possibility. Clearly, we should.
Michael Karesh operates www.truedelta.com, a vehicle reliability and price comparison website.
By Michael Karesh
June 19th, 2006 4,883 Views
The United States has pledged to kick the oil habit before. But this time we mean it. Better yet, we have a solution that doesn’t require any of that furrin’ hybrid and diesel technology: E85. Produced from corn and other products grown in good old American soil, this 85 percent ethanol blend enables American-as-apple-pie small block V8s to burn less gasoline than a Prius. If every car, truck, and SUV were E85 now, why we could tell the Arabs to shove it! So all good Americans should buy an E85-capable full-sized SUV TODAY! Actually, on second thought, maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to “go yellow.”
Brazil, poster child of the E85 movement, has farmed its way to energy independence. But the same solution won’t work so easily for the US. For one thing, Brazil produces ethanol from sugar cane, a much cheaper foodstuff than corn or anything else we can grow in the decidedly non-tropical Midwest. Perhaps global warming will lend a hand? In the meantime, every ethanol booster not wedded to corn interests cannot stop talking about switchgrass. Research indicates that an acre of panicum virgatum might yield three times as much ethanol as an acre of zea mays. But even if switchgrass proves a fruitful source of ethanol, its potential impact on US energy policy is minimal.
Americans are gas hogs. While 186 million Brazilians burn the equivalent of about 10 billion gallons of gasoline each year (40 percent of it ethanol), 296 million Americans burn 150 billion gallons of gasoline each year (3 percent of it ethanol). In other words, if America really wants to be like Brazil, we should cut gas consumption use by 90 percent. Hint: not many Brazilians drive full-size SUVs. Otherwise, we’ll need ten times as much ethanol as Brazil to match the Brazilian fuel mix.
Converting the entire U.S. vehicle fleet to E85 would require about twenty times as much ethanol as Brazil currently produces for domestic consumption. Guess what? America is already producing as much ethanol as Brazil, and will soon pass them to become the world’s largest ethanol producer.
To achieve full gasoline self-sufficiency, we could convert 140 million acres of farmland to switchgrass. That’s about twice the acreage currently devoted to corn and a landmass nearly the size of Texas. Once we use American coal to produce the electricity needed to convert the result to ethanol, we’re there! Or not. Devoting so much American soil to ethanol would send farmland and food prices soaring. This will make American farmers very happy, and anyone who has to buy food unhappy. We might have to starve millions to do it, but we’ll be able to feed our SUVs without foreign oil!
Alternatively, we could import ethanol. If Corn Belt congressmen would agree to cut the protective tariff, Brazil would gladly increase sugarcane production to help meet our needs. Brazil has plenty of space for more cane fields. What good does so much rain forest do anyone, anyway? No matter which route is chosen, this huge ethanol production expansion won’t– can’t– happen overnight. As part of his energy less dependence policy, President Bush has decreed that American ethanol production must double by 2012. If US gasoline consumption stops growing, by that date all US gas could contain five percent ethanol. Maintain this torrid growth rate, and by 2018, all American gas could contain ten percent ethanol.
Guess what? Virtually all vehicles on the road today can already burn ten percent ethanol, commonly known as “gasohol.” In other words, existing cars can probably use all of the ethanol we can produce through at least 2018. So why do we need new, E85-capable vehicles and new E85 pipelines and pumps in 2006? Well, they do seem to make Corn Belt congressmen and their constituents happy. They help GM deflect criticism. And, perhaps best of all, an E85 Tahoe gets a CAFE rating of 33.3 miles per gallon. You see, this rating is calculated based on the very shaky assumption that E85 (only 15 percent of which is gasoline) will be used half the time. As a result, GM can sell more V8-powered vehicles without incurring fines. Without this loophole, it would have to actually sell more fuel efficient vehicles if it didn’t want to pay up.
Of course, GM didn’t create this incentive. It’s just intelligently reacting to it. Congress, pressured by Corn Belt people and industries, created the incentive. But why does E85 make the Corn Belt so happy? Why not simply mandate more gasohol, which can be sold everywhere and used by everyone today? I have no idea. For some reason, no one seems to be talking about this possibility. Clearly, we should.
Michael Karesh operates www.truedelta.com, a vehicle reliability and price comparison website.
Re: TTAC on E85
Car and Driver did a great article (by Pat Bedard) on ethanol in their July issue. Among other things it reiterates the point that there's very little, if any, "new" energy in a gallon of ethanol made from corn. And that its lesser energy content kills fuel mileage. It's too big to post but here's the link, it's a great read
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...-promises.html
The other thing I'd be concerned about is what happens if some kind of disease hits the corn crop, either naturally or on purpose. Suddenly we not only have a serious food problem, but it would put the entire economic infrastructure at stake. To be honest, I'd rather take a chance with mid-east oil shieks.
Popular Science also had an interesting article this month on all kinds of alternative energy sources. It wasn't nearly as indepth, but it did give a brief synopsis of other alternatives like tidal and solar power.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...-promises.html
The other thing I'd be concerned about is what happens if some kind of disease hits the corn crop, either naturally or on purpose. Suddenly we not only have a serious food problem, but it would put the entire economic infrastructure at stake. To be honest, I'd rather take a chance with mid-east oil shieks.
Popular Science also had an interesting article this month on all kinds of alternative energy sources. It wasn't nearly as indepth, but it did give a brief synopsis of other alternatives like tidal and solar power.
Re: TTAC on E85
The bottom line is that no one thing is going to solve an immense energy problem. However, we can help the problem greatly by using all the methods available to us right now. How much better of would we be for instance, if in ten years the majority of cars and trucks on the road were hybrids running on E85? That's two solutions often considered separately, but together, they'd pack tremendous punch.
Re: TTAC on E85
Originally Posted by R377
Among other things it reiterates the point that there's very little, if any, "new" energy in a gallon of ethanol made from corn. And that its lesser energy content kills fuel mileage. It's too big to post but here's the link, it's a great read.
Now the switchgrass albiet sounds nice, and could help. But for ethanol to really take off we need to use Brazils technology and use "Plant Matter". Using the technology Brazil uses we could not only use the Corn, but the Corn Stalks as well. Off all the crops we farm the plant matter get's crunched up and shot out the back of the combine. If we harvested all of this "waste" it can be used to create ethanol.
Now, I'm not saying we will ever be at 100% ethanol replacement for 150billion gallons of gasoline a year. But I see the future as a mixture. We'll have all electric vehicles for people with a reasonable short daily commute. Hybrid Electric/Ethanol vehicles for people that want good mileage, but actually have to drive far. And complete E85 vehicles for Trucks, Sports Carts, and vehicles where Fuel Economy is not that much of a big deal.
No one thing is going to be a 100% replacement for Gasoline, but with a combination of a few; we might be able to achieve a somewhat Gasoline independant economy (or at least rely on our own production of Gasoline).
I don't think we should throw the idea out, when it's obvious it can be a part of the big picture down the road.
Last edited by Chrome383Z; Jun 21, 2006 at 08:30 AM.
Re: TTAC on E85
Originally Posted by Chrome383Z
Our whole universe is decreasing in total energy everyday.
At best, it can be converted. So, which black hole is that energy going into?
Re: TTAC on E85
Originally Posted by muckz
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
At best, it can be converted. So, which black hole is that energy going into?
At best, it can be converted. So, which black hole is that energy going into?


OK, this is reaching far far into my limited physics knowledge. But I believe the Law of Conservation of Energy only applies to a Fixed Universe. But in the real world the Universe is constantly expanding therefore that totally throws off the theory. As the Universe constantly expands, the total energy density is decreasing. And that's not even taking into account "Useful" energy.
My head hurts.
Re: TTAC on E85
Originally Posted by Chrome383Z
There's really no such thing as "New" energy. Our whole universe is decreasing in total energy everyday. Granted, Gasoline is stored energy that will probably use less energy to extract/use then any current alternative. But Gasoline is not going to be around forever. Any new form of energy will probably take more energy to create/use then Gasoline; but such is the world we are in today.
Now the switchgrass albiet sounds nice, and could help. But for ethanol to really take off we need to use Brazils technology and use "Plant Matter". Using the technology Brazil uses we could not only use the Corn, but the Corn Stalks as well. Off all the crops we farm the plant matter get's crunched up and shot out the back of the combine. If we harvested all of this "waste" it can be used to create ethanol.
Now the switchgrass albiet sounds nice, and could help. But for ethanol to really take off we need to use Brazils technology and use "Plant Matter". Using the technology Brazil uses we could not only use the Corn, but the Corn Stalks as well. Off all the crops we farm the plant matter get's crunched up and shot out the back of the combine. If we harvested all of this "waste" it can be used to create ethanol.
The reason Brazil's ethanol economics are a bit more favourable is because it uses sugar cane which contains a lot more energy than corn. Brazil is closer to the equator and so has more solar energy hitting it which means the plant matter is able to store and provide more energy. Unfortunately sugar cane doesn't grow in the midwest.
As to the switchgrass and other "cellulosic" forms of ethanol feedstocks, I agree that's where we have to head. The current problem is getting the energy out of those products, but new enzymes are making this more practical and efficient.
All this activity on alternate energy forms is exactly the reason OPEC doesn't like higher oil prices anymore than we do. At $40/bbl, few alternatives are worth pursuing and we'd happily continue using oil to satisfy all our needs. But at $70/bbl, it's worth investing in alternatives to oil, and ultimately these investments will make some of the alternatives feasible even at $40/bbl.
Re: TTAC on E85
Originally Posted by Chrome383Z
Now the switchgrass albiet sounds nice, and could help. But for ethanol to really take off we need to use Brazils technology and use "Plant Matter". Using the technology Brazil uses we could not only use the Corn, but the Corn Stalks as well. Off all the crops we farm the plant matter get's crunched up and shot out the back of the combine. If we harvested all of this "waste" it can be used to create ethanol.

Look, I while I agree E85 and ethanol is better than where we are today; its simply not a long term solution and there's no way we'd ever be able to use it as a 100% replacement to gasoline. We need to spend some energy coming up with a better idea.
TTAC on the expanding universe
Originally Posted by Chrome383Z

OK, this is reaching far far into my limited physics knowledge. But I believe the Law of Conservation of Energy only applies to a Fixed Universe. But in the real world the Universe is constantly expanding therefore that totally throws off the theory. As the Universe constantly expands, the total energy density is decreasing. And that's not even taking into account "Useful" energy.
My head hurts.

The universe is cooling off, and you're right, as it expands, the density of matter/energy thins out. The total amount of energy (matter-based or otherwise), though, does remain the same in the entire universe (whether smaller yesterday, or bigger tomorrow).
This of course, is directly related to E85. Somehow. I think.
Re: TTAC on E85
I think alot of people will make alot of money from ethanol. Billions. Why wouldn't they want us to believe it will solve all of our energy problems?
But of course, it won't solve any energy problems. As long as fossil fuels are required to produce and transport ethanol, it will be little more than just marketing hype.
Marketing hype which will change our dependence on foreign oil not one bit - but of course will make many people, very rich, and help elect alot of politicians. That's E85's purpose.
But of course, it won't solve any energy problems. As long as fossil fuels are required to produce and transport ethanol, it will be little more than just marketing hype.
Marketing hype which will change our dependence on foreign oil not one bit - but of course will make many people, very rich, and help elect alot of politicians. That's E85's purpose.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
NewsBot
2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia
0
May 24, 2015 10:50 AM
2001Firehawk
Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
18
Dec 28, 2007 10:44 PM
Z284ever
Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
60
Feb 28, 2006 08:54 AM



