We should probably take this discussion to a different thread on E85, but I wanted to respond to this comment.

It seems like everyone takes this as a "disadvantage" of ethanol, but you've said two things (and causally linked them) in that statement.

1. Ethanol has a lower energy content than gasoline per unit volume.
2. Ethanol has a less than 1:1 energy expenditure ratio (life cycle cost, energy balance).

While 1 is correct and an indisputable fact, just because ethanol has less energy per volume than gasoline doesn't mean that it costs more energy to produce ethanal than you get out of it as compared to a similar calculation for gasoline. I've done some reading, because I admittedly don't know the facts, and it seems to be that gasoline only returns 80% of the energy invested into extracting the oil, transporting it, and refining it into gasoline. I'm not a corn lobbyist by any means (I think we need to get to cellulosic ethanol for a better solution), but it seems that because ethanol has less energy content, everyone assumes that it must be more energy expensive to make it. There's only one source (Pimental) that seems to say the opposite, but a lot of people say he's full of it. On the other hand, it's hard to trust the government (even the USDA) these days, so I may have to start running these numbers myself.

Minnesota:
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/ethanol/balance.html

Wikipedia, with some good links to sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85#Lif..._gas_emissions

The heart of the debate (Pimentel/Patzek vs. Dale/Sheehan):
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/sep05/running.htm

-Jim

 

Currently all (or at least the vast majority) of motor fuel ethanol comes from the "corn belt" states and cannot be transported by pipeline, hence the rarity of E85 on the West Coast. As it is California, and maybe Oregon and Washington gasoline is already E10, that is a lot of ethanol that has to get here by rail or truck.

It irritates me that car and truck mfrs get some kind of CAFE "credit" for producing FFV's that will never see a drop of E85. Archer Daniels Midland has the best lobbyists in DC.

Jim

 

http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/ethanol/ethanol.pdf

If you read that, it says the Pimental study is the only one that says there's a energy deficit in producing corn and even more so for cellulosic ethanol.

Cellulosic ethanol looks promising though, according to: http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061009/NEWS03/610090307/1001/NEWS


Until you read this....
I also read somewhere that they figure they don't need to fertilize areas where they are using natural feedstock, like prarie grass and pine trees such. I have a problem with that; eventually, if you keep taking nutrients out of the ground, the ground won't produce anything anymore. If you keep deforesting a specific area, and regrowing trees on that area and not letting any trees die and return to the soil, eventually you will take out all the natural organic material and nothing will grow.


Pimental also states in that page that Ethanol is a net energy loser, seems to contradict what you were saying.

 

furball,

I'm going to make a new thread so that we don't step on a good propane discussion.

-Jim

 

i almost feel off topic compared to the rest of you, but my opinion is if propane is clean enough for me to cook with it is green enough to run through my engines, man law!

 

We did get off topic, but we moved the ethanol energy balance discussion to this thread:

Ethanol Energy Balance

Funny statement, but the issue with propane being green that is being discussed is mostly a question of the greenhouse gasses given off when it is combusted. CO2 is pretty inert as far as your food is concerned (heck, you're breathing CO2 onto your burger), but put enough of it in the upper atmosphere and the thought is that you'll kick off some serious global warming. Plus, burning a hydrocarbon on your grill/stove is quite different than doing so under compression in an engine, where other things like NOx's can come off.

-Jim

 

All true, i am sorry for my wise crack, i'll try to tone those down a bit.