Ethanol-blend auto emissions no greener than gasoline: study

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.

 

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

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....

 

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

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"

 

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

 

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.

 

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

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.

 

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

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

 

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

 

He's probably citing Michael Wang's DOE research, amongst others.

 

One of the by products of making Bio D is glycerin, which can be used in fertilizers. So it is in effect a way of recyling. I live across from corn fields, and see what is done every year. They rotate crops, one year soy, the next Corn. Occasionally they will plant winter wheat. The leftover plant material after harvesting is tilled back into the soil and breaks down into natural fertilizers. In the spring and fall they inject Anhydrous Ammonia into the soil for a nitrogen boost. In early spring they sometimes spread a granular fertilizer if soil tests determine its needed. The only petroleum product used is during pesticide/weed prevention spraying, and a lot of them use water based products now instead of oil based.

There are several sites for bio diesel that detail production, costs, environmental impacts, etc. The beauty of bio D is that if soybeans are used, the crop yields of soy far exceed that of corn, and oil from soy also exceeds that of corn. SoyDiesel is what it is called, and like I mentioned other places, the only things needed are tanks, pumps and a stirring mechanism. You only need to heat and wash it if needed to meet certain standards, but for the most part, it is useable right out of the tank after seperation. In addition, Bio D can be made from waste veg oil, and there is plenty of that to go around instead of in land fills.


EDIT: correction to the ammonia.

 

A lotta NG is used to make the Ammonia Hydroxide. See here.

 

Tripp has it right. Between NG required for fertilizer production, and energy inputs to process the etoh out of corn, the notion is agribusiness and political driven, not smart ecology.

Same deal with Brazil, btw. They depend on huge NG imports from Bolivia to keep their sugar beets -> Etoh economy going.

Switchgrass, cellulose, and algae are worth further consideration.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ May 11 2007, 05:22 PM) [snapback]440262[/snapback]</div>

Co-locating ethanol plants with other thermal power plants can help with the NG problem (to some degree, the fertilizer for the crops would still likely be an issue) because the waste heat from those power plants can be used in lieu of NG to produce the steam necessary to separate the ethanol from water. This is important because that step uses a lot of energy. Co-location helps to lower the fossil fuel input and give ethanol a better energy balance.

Algae will, I think, ultimately win out. It's very flexible and can be produced all year long on land that is shite using water that is also shite. The left overs also make a good fertilizer.

 

There was a terrific bit on NPR a couple of weeks ago with a scientist who authored a paper questioning the push behind ethanol and biodiesel. This guy's primary field of expertise is atmospheric modeling--in this case looking at the impact of alternative fuels in a variety of scenarios.

The core issues around consideration of a new fuel seem to be
- is the fuel tied to foreign sources
- carbon cost in creating, distributing, and consuming the fuel
- other environmental impact
- practicality


From this guy's research (and my humble recollection) here is how the alt-fuels compare with standard stuff:

ethanol vs today's gasoline
- gas releases two major carcinogens when combusted; eth releases two as well (different ones than gas)
- eth releases a smaller volume of byproducts that contribute to global warming
- eth releases byproducts that interact with the lower atmosphere and increase ground-level ozone (in some geographical regions this would be very severe; less so in others)
- in terms of production, ethanol is not very efficient-- the land area required to supply the entire fleet of vehicles in the US is large to a very silly degree
- large-scale industrial farming is about the least green, clean, and sustainable activity humans engage in

biodiesel vs diesel
- biodiesel burns more cleanly than diesel in every way, BUT
- particulate emissions from biodiesel-burning engines are still very bad for local air quality

electric from a green source vs all
- wind farms provide a much higher energy density (in terms of land area) than corn ethanol farming
- trivial levels of pollutants compared to others


Overall, his point seemed to be that if we're going to go through the massive trouble of weening ourselves off the foreign oil teat AND setting up new systems of production and distribution AND developing new engines we should do it in a large step forward, not a small one. The move to all-electric just makes more sense.

Ethanol and biodiesel are, at best, very small steps forward. If you live in an urban area, they are likely steps backwards in terms of the quality of your local environment.

BTW, I was completely surprised by his findings (he seemed to be too actually). I think we should still be examining every alt-fuel option out there (Wiyosaya had a great post on aspect). Some, like biodiesel, can have an immediate favorable impact even if they're not long term panaceas.

 

Hi All,

The way I see it, Ethanol Fuel in the USA is a spin-off of Ethanol oxygenation gasoline component buisness. Its a bit of "we have the capability to make Ethanol, lets make more" rather than any kind of rational solution to the bio-fuel problem.

Of course we want bio-fuels, because that reduces green-house gas emissions by modern society.

Biobutanol on the other hand is a rational solution. Take the problem of going out and find a bio-source for a fuel that all cars can run, and all fuel infrastructure can handle and you end up with Butanol. Process devices are similar to ethanol, but with much greater energy density in the fuel, and no problems with transport.

Butanol can also be mixed into Bio-Diesel to reduce the gel point temperature, as well as used in spark ignition engines.

Progress in Biobutanol processes have removed the butyric acid byproduct to low levels. Butyric acid has a very nasty smell. The processes have also been able to convert most of the Acetone in the ABE production into Butanol. Its no wonder that BP et al are working hard on this.

Here are some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biobutanol
http://www.butanol.com/
http://www.sustainablebioenergy.uiuc.edu/P...ns/Blaschek.pdf
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Butanol

 

At the end of the day though, we should be striving for electric vehicles because they are by far the most efficient (I'm talking point source consumption here). The ICE is so brutally inefficient that we should abandon ASAP IMHO. Butanol is certainly better than ethanol (and gasoline, for that matter), but it's still suffers from its application in a very inefficient process.

 

Hi Tripp,

I agree. If we could throw a switch and all cars tomorrow were electric, biofuels would be sidenote in history. But that is not going to happen, and there are allot of non-hybrid cars out there that use twice the fuel they need to when driving around metropolitan areas. The only way to get GH emissions down from those cars is a bio-fuel. Ethanol requires new engines to be efficient (not just E85 GM kludge plumbing upgrades), and butanol does not.

I am sure the reason BP et al are interested in this, is that the production cost for Butanol is less than for gasoline and ethanol right now. The things holding it back is mass production facility engineering, and standardisation of grades so car manufacturers can sign-off for waranty purposes. 20 % Butanol Gasoline would probably not need any Ethanol to meet the emissions formulation specs, with an insignificant mileage penalty compared to 10 % Ethanol Gasoline, and more than a doubling of the bio-fuel miles in the tankful of fuel.

Even in the long term if/when electric cars dominate, there will still be the need for heat engine vehicles for heavy load work. And thus a market for a bio-fuel.

And there is research that may lead to 50% + efficient heat engines. Which if powered by a bio-fuel and hybrid drive would be very competitive with electric cars well to wheels.