Ethanol production

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Jumbo82 said:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against ethanol. I'm just against corn ethanol, which is currently the prime source. Our scientists are also making advances in converting grass and other cellulose into ethanol through the use of enzymes. Further government funding into this area wouldn't be a bad thing. If it becomes cost effective and actually does reduce our dependence on foreign oil, I'm all for it. Its just that the current situation with corn subsidies is artificially raising the cost of beef, chicken, and numerous other food products for no reason. Who benefits? Not the environment, not the consumer, not even national security. Just the farmers, lobbyists, and politicians. Maybe I'm missing something here. I suppose there is some benefit to laying down the infrastructure with corn ethanol so it will be ready when other sources become economical. It just seems like the benefits don't outweigh the costs. If someone can shed some light on this issue for me, I'll all ears.

It's not the competition with ethenol that is raising the price of food products, it's the skyrocketing cost of oil that is raising the price of food products. Next is the growing demand from Asia (China specifically) and the shrinking value of the dollar that are driving food prices up in this country. Very little of the increase in food prices is related to ethenol competition.
 
Jumbo82 said:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against ethanol. I'm just against corn ethanol, which is currently the prime source. Our scientists are also making advances in converting grass and other cellulose into ethanol through the use of enzymes. Further government funding into this area wouldn't be a bad thing. If it becomes cost effective and actually does reduce our dependence on foreign oil, I'm all for it. Its just that the current situation with corn subsidies is artificially raising the cost of beef, chicken, and numerous other food products for no reason. Who benefits? Not the environment, not the consumer, not even national security. Just the farmers, lobbyists, and politicians. Maybe I'm missing something here. I suppose there is some benefit to laying down the infrastructure with corn ethanol so it will be ready when other sources become economical. It just seems like the benefits don't outweigh the costs. If someone can shed some light on this issue for me, I'll all ears.

I agree with you that corn ethanol is only marginally beneficial, but think laying down the infrastructure is worth the effort.
I do want to make one point that few people know. We often hear on the news things like 25 billion dollar per year going to farmers from the farm bill and these numbers sound huge. This sometimes caused resentment towards farmers. In reality over 50% of the farm bill is the food stamps program and another 20% are things like food safety and rural development loans. Only 29% of the farm bill is payments to farmers. We are by far the lowest subsidized of all the developed world.
 
Jumbo82 said:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against ethanol. I'm just against corn ethanol, which is currently the prime source. Our scientists are also making advances in converting grass and other cellulose into ethanol through the use of enzymes. Further government funding into this area wouldn't be a bad thing. If it becomes cost effective and actually does reduce our dependence on foreign oil, I'm all for it. Its just that the current situation with corn subsidies is artificially raising the cost of beef, chicken, and numerous other food products for no reason. Who benefits? Not the environment, not the consumer, not even national security. Just the farmers, lobbyists, and politicians. Maybe I'm missing something here. I suppose there is some benefit to laying down the infrastructure with corn ethanol so it will be ready when other sources become economical. It just seems like the benefits don't outweigh the costs. If someone can shed some light on this issue for me, I'll all ears.

All good points and I agree. I doubt corn ethanol will be the final answer but personally I think it's a step in the right direction.
 
If you're going to spout facts about how much energy it takes to create a gallon of e85, why not give us a comparison and tell us how much energy it takes to create a gallon of gasoline? Including such things as driving a ship full of oil-derived fuel over to Iraq, pumping the oil, shipping it back, refining it, etc. We have corn right here. I'm not going to pretend to know which one is more efficient, because I don't. But I do know that there is a ton of disinformation and misinformation about e85 floating around. A lot of the guys even on my automotive forums are in the dark.

I'm not converting to help the planet, I'm doing it for the higher power levels I'll get under boost. The fact that it is a cleaner burning fuel and paying less at the pump for fuel with almost as much octane as racing fuel are just positive byproducts :)

Jumbo82 said:
Its just that the current situation with corn subsidies is artificially raising the cost of beef, chicken, and numerous other food products for no reason. Who benefits? Not the environment, not the consumer, not even national security. Just the farmers, lobbyists, and politicians.
Myth: Ethanol production wastes corn that could be used for food.

Fact: In 2001, U.S. farmers produced 9.5 billion bushels of corn and only 600 million bushels are currently used in ethanol production. Fact is, there's no shortage of corn, and the ethanol market could expand significantly without negatively impacting its availability. Besides, ethanol production uses field corn, most of which is fed to livestock, not humans. Only the starch portion of the corn kernel is used to produce ethanol. The vitamins, minerals, proteins and fiber are converted to other products such as sweeteners, corn oil and high-value livestock feed, which helps livestock producers add to the overall food supply.
 
Taken from:
Mythbusters said:
Mythbusters

Ethanol-blended gasoline powers cars and trucks hundreds of thousands of miles across the United States each and every year. In fact, it has powered vehicles through more than 2 trillion miles in the past 25 years. It is proven to decrease air pollution, enhance engine performance and boost local, regional and national economies. Every major automaker approves and warrantees its use. Even so, there's a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding out there. The truth is ethanol is economical, efficient and earth-friendly, and in North Dakota , it's good for all of us. Get the facts, and GoE!

Myth: Ethanol makes your engine run hotter.

Fact: There's a reason many high-powered racing engines run on pure alcohol. It combusts at a lower temperature, keeping the engine cooler. Ethanol, a form of alcohol, in your fuel does the same for your engine.

Myth: Ethanol is bad for fuel injectors.

Fact: Olefins in gasoline cause deposits that can foul injectors. By comparison, ethanol burns 100 percent and leaves no residue, so it cannot contribute to the formation of deposits. Fact is, ethanol actually keeps fuel injectors cleaner and improves performance. What's more, ethanol does not increase corrosion, and it will not harm seals or valves.

Myth: Ethanol plugs fuel lines.

Fact: Ethanol actually keeps your fuel system cleaner than regular unleaded gasoline. In dirty fuel systems, ethanol loosens contaminants and residues and they can get caught in your fuel filter. In older cars, especially those manufactured before 1975, replacing the filter will solve the problem. And if you continue to use ethanol-blended gasoline, your filter will remain cleaner for improved engine performance.

Myth: Ethanol isn't safe for older vehicles.

Fact: Many older cars were designed to run on leaded gasoline, with the lead providing necessary octane for performance. However, even dramatic changes in gasoline formulation over the past few years have not affected older engine performance. Ethanol, a natural, renewable additive, raises octane levels by three points and works well in older engines.

Myth: Ethanol harms small engines, like those on lawn mowers, snowmobiles, personal watercraft and recreational vehicles.

Fact: Small engine manufacturers have made certain that their engines perform with gasoline that contains oxygenates such as ethanol. Fact is, ethanol-blended fuel can be used safely in anything that runs on unleaded gasoline.

Myth: Ethanol actually increases air pollution.

Fact: There can be no increase in emission from ethanol-blended fuels; it's the law. In fact, ethanol reduces carbon monoxide emissions by as much as 25 percent and displaces components of gasoline that produce toxic emissions that cause cancer and other diseases.

Myth: Ethanol contributes to global warming.

Fact: The energy balance for ethanol is positive, 1.35 to 1, so the greenhouse gas benefits of ethanol are also positive. Fact is, using ethanol produces 32 percent fewer emissions of greenhouse gases than gasoline for the same distance traveled.

Myth: It takes more energy to produce ethanol than it contributes.

Fact: Fact is, corn plants efficiently collect and store energy, so for every 100 BTUs of energy used to produce ethanol, 135 BTUs of ethanol are produced. In addition, ethanol facilities are extremely energy efficient.

Myth: Ethanol production wastes corn that could be used for food.

Fact: In 2001, U.S. farmers produced 9.5 billion bushels of corn and only 600 million bushels are currently used in ethanol production. Fact is, there's no shortage of corn, and the ethanol market could expand significantly without negatively impacting its availability. Besides, ethanol production uses field corn, most of which is fed to livestock, not humans. Only the starch portion of the corn kernel is used to produce ethanol. The vitamins, minerals, proteins and fiber are converted to other products such as sweeteners, corn oil and high-value livestock feed, which helps livestock producers add to the overall food supply.

Myth: Ethanol does not benefit farmers.

Fact: Demand for grain from ethanol production increases net farm income more than $1.2 billion a year, and ethanol production adds $4.5 billion to U.S. farm income annually. Studies have shown that corn prices in markets near ethanol plants will increase between 5 cents and 8 cents per bushel. In North Dakota , ethanol production increases the market price for corn by 25 cents per bushel. In addition, ethanol production accounts for a portion of the overall corn supply and helps improve corn prices nationwide.

Myth: Ethanol only benefits farmers.

Fact: The increase in net farm income results in a boost in the agricultural sector that cuts farm program costs and taxpayer outlays. Beyond that, ethanol production has been responsible for more than 40,000 jobs, or more than $1.3 billion in household income. It also directly and indirectly adds more than $6 billion to the American economy each year by boosting surrounding economies.

Sources: American Coalition of Ethanol and the Renewable Fuels Association
 
I'm all for anything that reduces our dependency on foreign oil, but I will add this.

I work at a grocery store, and every time our milk and cheese prices double, our suppliers say it's because of ethanol. They say that the price of corn feed for the dairy cattle has gone up because of ethanol.

This confuses me, because every time I listened to the commodity reports this last year, the corn farmers are bitching because they didn't make the money they expected to on corn.

IMHO, I think the future of the rural American is to produce their own energy, whether it be wind, solar, ethanol, or other; but I don't know what the answer is for the city folk/national economy.
 
NitrouStang96 said:
If you're going to spout facts about how much energy it takes to create a gallon of e85, why not give us a comparison and tell us how much energy it takes to create a gallon of gasoline? Including such things as driving a ship full of oil-derived fuel over to Iraq, pumping the oil, shipping it back, refining it, etc.

About 1 gallon of gasoline to produce 5 gallons of gas at the pump.

A lot of good points here, but....

Corn Ethanol is a joke. It's political lipservice, designed to make politicians look good. Sugarcane Ethanol does produce a higher yeild per acre, but is still a very dirty process.

I am NOT a right-wing nut; I sell, install, and service Solar Electric systems for a living. I am simply a realist.

No-one's even mentioned the damage caused by large-scale farming. There are thousands of square miles of Dead Zones in the oceans at most of the large river delts in this country already, from agricultural runoff, which is largely petrolium based. Imagine the effect that increasing our agricultural base enough to even produce 10-20% of the fuel we use on a daily basis in this country would have on these areas. We're talking about areas the size of large cities where NOTHING can survive except algae.
 
Quoting a source such as "American Coalition of Ethanol and the Renewable Fuels Association" is akin to asking the Ford salesman if I should buy a Ford or (fill in the blank) brand. Please.

Ethanol is not "the answer" to anything. There is nothing as cost-effective as OIL for the foreseeable future. We're not running out of it, but we ARE getting way too much of it from the ME. We have the answer on our (saner) side of the pond- Drill- Refine- repeat.
 
I'm not an ethanol proponent. I'm not nitpicky about it, because, like I said, I'm not converting because it's the answer to saving the planet - I'm doing it for horsepower. I have a couple rebuttals, though.

The source was Mythbusters, not the coalition... Now, I do realize that their info did come from the coalition, but which one(s) of those statements are you saying aren't true? If you ask the Ford dealer which car has more mpg, the Ford or the Chevy; which car has more trunk space, the Ford or the Toyota... I'm not going to say he's not going to lie, but you can fairly easily look up those facts. In fact, even the statement that "for every 100 BTUs of energy used to produce ethanol, 135 BTUs of ethanol are produced" is right in line with what was stated earlier in this thread: "3 BTUs to create 4." So you can't say they are exaggerating, at least on that one statement.

I digress... all of this is news to me. Like I said before, I don't know anything about its production, I just know about how it will perform in my car. So I'd like to look at the positive side of things :)

What I know is that: 1) I will be producing lower quantities of harmful gases, 2) I will be paying less at the pump, 3) I will be making more power, 4) I will not be contributing to our dependency on oil, and so on, and so on.

The rest of the facts aside, e85 is an excellent fuel for me. So, I'd say that it definitely has its place, even if it is a small niche market. Which is why I hate all of the disinformation like "e85 will burn up your engine, eat through your fuel lines," and yada yada yada. For instance, all you need for a Mustang like mine is a bigger fuel pump, bigger injectors, and a tune. Same goes for a LOT of cars. Or you could just buy a $500 plug n play kit that is simply a box that installs in about 30min and changes the rate of the fuel injectors, but you wouldn't get the same power benefit.
 
NitrouStang96 said:
Which is why I hate all of the disinformation like "e85 will burn up your engine, eat through your fuel lines," and yada yada yada.
I am guessing that the "eat through your fuel lines" myth came from biodiesel. It's not true there either, but they recommend replacing your fuel lines when you start using biodiesel, because it will free the deposits in your fuel line and clog your injectors.

What ever happed with those hydrogen fuel cells they were talking about. Seems, that other than every auto maker having one hybrid, you don't here anything about that tech. since they started subsidizing ethanol.
 
Jesse17 said:
What ever happed with those hydrogen fuel cells they were talking about. Seems, that other than every auto maker having one hybrid, you don't here anything about that tech. since they started subsidizing ethanol.


They started Hyping the technology long before it was viable, then ran into problems, not the least of which is that there isn't, and may never be, a cheap, abundant source of Hydrogen.
 
Jesse17 said:
I am guessing that the "eat through your fuel lines" myth came from biodiesel. It's not true there either, but they recommend replacing your fuel lines when you start using biodiesel, because it will free the deposits in your fuel line and clog your injectors.
Yeah, that's probably true, too. Ethanol will clean some stuff out. I'm pretty sure it also came from the fact that straight ethanol will probably to a lot of harm to the fuel lines and engine. Dilute it to 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline like e85, though, and you have plenty of lubricant to keep things from corroding.
 
The problem that the US is running into IMHO is that while we are touting free market economies and Globalization (which we should), we are still protecting our farm industry through tariffs and subsidies. If we are to become truly free-market oriented, we must free up everything. Globalization and free-market is all about adaptation and change, something that to a degree the US has not done...

Just my $.02 from my studies in Int'l Politics and Economics..
 
Sea said:
They started Hyping the technology long before it was viable, then ran into problems, not the least of which is that there isn't, and may never be, a cheap, abundant source of Hydrogen.

Are you kidding me? Seriously? Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the entire UNIVERSE. There is 13 times more hydrogen in the universe than the next most abundant element (helium).

It's fairly easily produced from natural gas as well as water (though that is more expensive). Christ, a child can get pure hydrogen from a bowl of water with a couple of batteries and some wires and test tubes.
 
srm775 said:
It's fairly easily produced from natural gas as well as water (though that is more expensive). Christ, a child can get pure hydrogen from a bowl of water with a couple of batteries and some wires and test tubes.

One of my biggest arguments with any fuel source is this...what is the true cost of producing the fuel? This is without subsidized cost. And I don't mean true cost merely in terms of money, but environmental impact as well (and extrapolate that to our own health,etc). Sure it's easy, but currently relies on generated electricity to create the reaction. Hence nuclear or coal.
 
zoebisch01 said:
One of my biggest arguments with any fuel source is this...what is the true cost of producing the fuel? This is without subsidized cost. And I don't mean true cost merely in terms of money, but environmental impact as well (and extrapolate that to our own health,etc). Sure it's easy, but currently relies on generated electricity to create the reaction. Hence nuclear or coal.

That could be ... but just like with corn-based ethenol, the cost to produce it today is signficantly higher than the cost to produce it tomorrow. Just like any emerging technology or industry, as it ages it becomes more cost effective and easier to produce. Advances in the technology as well as the improvments in the infrastructure make it easier, cleaner and better to produce.

Gasoline was once very expensive to produce, now, it's reletively very cheap to produce.
 
srm775 said:
Are you kidding me? Seriously? Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the entire UNIVERSE. There is 13 times more hydrogen in the universe than the next most abundant element (helium).

It's fairly easily produced from natural gas as well as water (though that is more expensive). Christ, a child can get pure hydrogen from a bowl of water with a couple of batteries and some wires and test tubes.

I think the key word is CHEAP. I was not trying to imply that there isn't an abundant AMOUNT of the element. Are you saying that you can extract pure Hydrogen in a non energy-intensive manner, with a net energy Gain?
 
I'm starting to wonder if alternative fuel sources truly have to become cheaper to produce, or if they just have to stay put and wait for the price of gasoline to overtake them... food for thought.
 
Back
Top