Ethanol-blend auto emissions no greener than gasoline: study

[Wiyosaya]

CBC News

An unpublished federal report appears to undermine the belief that commercially available ethanol-blended fuel produces cleaner emissions than regular gasoline.

Many Canadians believe filling up with ethanol-blended gasoline reduces the emission of greenhouse gases that damage the environment.

Advertising sponsored by the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association encourages the idea, telling Canadians renewable fuels are "good for the environment," and even some provincial governments, including Manitoba and Saskatchewan, say the fuel "burns cleaner" than gasoline.

The federal Conservative government committed $2 billion in incentives for ethanol, made from wheat and corn, and biodiesel in last week's budget.

But based on Ottawa's own research, critics say the investment is based more on myth than hard science.[/b]

Full article

Thanks to this site

[cc9150]

But ethanol does reduce the requirement for foreign oil.

All these articles take one isolated concept and beat it to death, without considering the Big Picture.

Question: does your Prius do you any good if you use it as an excuse to drive to places that you otherwise wouldn't go?

"Green" is a very, very, very big picture. Sometimes you have to be dirty in one area to be overall green.

[F8L]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wiyosaya @ Apr 14 2007, 02:54 PM) [snapback]423361[/snapback]</div>

Full article

Thanks to this site
[/b]

From what I learned in my Nat. Resource Conservation class the main purpose of enthanol blended fuel was to reduce carbon monoxide not all emissions. They needed a replacement for MTBE. Well I use "needed" loosely. 10% Is not enough to alter the characeristics all that much it seems. It's just another bandaid for a dirty fuel and another way for the government to rid themselves of byproducts and make a profit....

[Wiyosaya]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cc9150 @ Apr 14 2007, 06:04 PM) [snapback]423365[/snapback]</div>

But ethanol does reduce the requirement for foreign oil.

All these articles take one isolated concept and beat it to death, without considering the Big Picture.

Question: does your Prius do you any good if you use it as an excuse to drive to places that you otherwise wouldn't go?

"Green" is a very, very, very big picture. Sometimes you have to be dirty in one area to be overall green.
[/b]

IMHO, whether ethanol will help reduce the requirement for foreign oil depends on it's source. If its cellulosic, maybe. If it is from corn, maybe not. I'm not an expert in the field, however, I am aware that there are running debates on whether ethanol will help reduce foreign oil dependency because of the energy input required to produce it in the first place.

I think that the function that articles like this serve is to bring the issues with alternative technologies like this to the forefront. Once they are there, then they can be discussed and brought together. I'd hate to see us develop an ethanol based economy only to find out that it is no better, overall, or even worse than what we have.

[F8L]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wiyosaya @ Apr 14 2007, 03:39 PM) [snapback]423376[/snapback]</div>

IMHO, whether ethanol will help reduce the requirement for foreign oil depends on it's source. If its cellulosic, maybe. If it is from corn, maybe not. I'm not an expert in the field, however, I am aware that there are running debates on whether ethanol will help reduce foreign oil dependency because of the energy input required to produce it in the first place.

I think that the function that articles like this serve is to bring the issues with alternative technologies like this to the forefront. Once they are there, then they can be discussed and brought together. I'd hate to see us develop an ethanol based economy only to find out that it is no better, overall, or even worse than what we have.
[/b]

Well put. Especially the second part. We as a race have a terrible history of jumping onto the first alternative train that appears at the station when things start going bad. Someday we may be capable of pacing ourselves and preparing for the future by thinking things through and from every angle.

Despite its critisim I think the Triple Bottom Line way of making decisions could serve us well. IE: Every decision should weigh in the effects on the human, environmental, and economic spheres before an agreement is made as well as how it will effect future generations. It is kind of a modernizd version or mixture of Jefferson's ideas for a new nation and that of the Iroquois Confederacy.


"No generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence"

"In every deliberation we must consider the impact on the seventh generation"

[acdii]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wiyosaya @ Apr 14 2007, 05:39 PM) [snapback]423376[/snapback]</div>

If it is from corn, maybe not. I'm not an expert in the field, however, I am aware that there are running debates on whether ethanol will help reduce foreign oil dependency because of the energy input required to produce it in the first place.

[/b]

Do a google search on Ethanol production, you might be very surprised at what you find. I was. Ethanol produced from corn yields a 34% increase over what it takes to produce it, compared to gasoline which is in the negative column. 1.34:1 is the ratio for Ethanol production. OTOH, ethanol does not produce the same efficiency numbers that gasoline does, mainly due to the complexities of engines. A flex fuel engine designed to work with E85 or regular gasoline produces lower MPG numbers, but an engine designed to run purely on Ethanol will show significantly higher numbers. As far as emissions go, well, E85 still has 15% dino in it, so it cant be clean, but is cleaner than straight or 10% ethanol laced gasoline.

Now for something to really boogle the mind, Bio Diesel made from soy beans yields a 202% increase of btu in to btu out. In addition Bio Diesel is much cleaner burning, has no harsh byproducts from manufacture, the only byproduct in the process of converting the oil to bio is Glycerin. The byproduct from the production of the oil itself is used as a feed source, so there is no waste at all. Bio Diesel is also non toxic, you could drink it, but it tastes like S**T. The emissions of pure BioD are also significantly lower than dino diesel, the only exception is NoX is 10% higher, but since BioD has no sulphur, the particulate filters that are on 2007 and up Diesels eliminate the NoX completely.

Ultimately, Soybean crops have a higher yield to acre than corn, produces more BioD than corn can produce Ethanol, turnaround time is much shorter, and Bio D can be made with Waste Vegetable Oil as well. There is also technology further down the road that can yield a 318% output.

If car manufacturers and EPA really want to do their part to clean the air, they should produce more diesel cars, and push for more Bio D plants and not Ethanol plants. Imagine what the prius would get with a diesel under the hood! If a VW TDI can get 42MPG without hybrid technology, then add the hybrid to that and see what it would get. You would be seeing easy 80 MPG numbers.

BTW I forgot to mention, Bio D can run on any production diesel engine made today without any modifications, unlike Ethanol.

[tripp]

yeah, but the TDI requires diesel which eats up more oil than gasoline (about 25% more). Diesel has a higher energy content that gasoline. That's part of the reason diesels get better MPG. The Atkinson cycle engine in the Prius offsets some of the advantages of the diesel (no pumping losses) so the advantage would be less than you think.

If you look at the amount of oil consumed by a TDI instead of the MPG then it's less impressive. I agree that bio diesel is a step in the right direction. If we make it out of algae then we'd probably be able to make enough of the stuff.

I'm not saying diesel isn't a part of the solution, it will be, but it's far, FAR from being a silver bullet.

As for ethanol, it's really hard to tell. The fossil fuel balance contains a lot of coal and NG, not oil. One of the really energy intensive steps is seperating the water from the alcohol, which is done by turning the mix to steam and separating things out. This can be done in a variety of ways. The most common is using natural gas to make steam. However, there are two other ways that are in use that I know of. The first is using manure to create biogas which is then used to create steam. This reduces the fossil fuel input quite a bit. The second approach is in use now at an Ethanol plant in SW Minnesota. The plant is co-located next to a coal fired power plant (that was built in 1979) and it uses the low grade waste heat from the power plant to generate the steam that is needed. This puts a substantial dent in the fossil fuel inputs. I don't know how these approaches change the energy balance, but they obviously make the energy balance more positive.

[john1701a]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ACD @ Apr 14 2007, 08:43 PM) [snapback]423446[/snapback]</div>

The emissions of pure BioD are also significantly lower than dino diesel, the only exception is NoX is 10% higher, but since BioD has no sulphur, the particulate filters that are on 2007 and up Diesels eliminate the NoX completely.[/b]

However, the automakers have chosen to *NOT* actually use that hardware.

So yes, the diesel vehicle can deliver a SULEV rating. But none of them are actually available... only prototypes currently too expensive for competitive production with gas hybrids.

[qbee42]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ACD @ Apr 14 2007, 09:43 PM) [snapback]423446[/snapback]</div>

Do a google search on Ethanol production, you might be very surprised at what you find. I was. Ethanol produced from corn yields a 34% increase over what it takes to produce it, compared to gasoline which is in the negative column.
[/b]

Does this include the petroleum based fertilizers that are used to replenish the fields after the corn crops suck the life out of them?

Tom

[MegansPrius]

Another article on this same/related topic:

Warning is sounded on ethanol use
The fuel would create more ground-level ozone than gasoline if used heavily, a study finds. Critics disagree on the overall risk.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-et...-home-headlines

I assume the full source study cited in the above story will appear online shortly at (not there as of this posting): http://pubs.acs.org/journals/esthag/index_news.html