Ethanol-blend auto emissions no greener than gasoline

An unpublished federal report appears to undermine the belief that commercially available ethanol-blended fuel produces cleaner emissions than regular gasoline.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

Scientists at Environment Canada studied four vehicles of recent makes, testing their emissions in a range for driving conditions and temperatures.

"Looking at tailpipe emissions, from a greenhouse gas perspective, there really isn't much difference between ethanol and gasoline," said Greg Rideout, head of Environment Canada's toxic emissions research.

"Our results seemed to indicate that with today's vehicles, there's not a lot of difference at the tailpipe with greenhouse gas emissions."

The study found no statistical difference between the greenhouse gas emissions of regular unleaded fuel and 10 per cent ethanol blended fuel.

Although the study found a reduction in carbon monoxide, a pollutant that forms smog, emissions of some other gases, such as hydrocarbons, actually increased under certain conditions.

src: www.cbc.ca...

Ethanol as noted in the source is a renewable source which is a perk. However if the contaminants are present and in some cases elevated where exactly are we going with this. Both the US/Canadian governments are spending or going to be spending billions on this technology but it appears more research is needed before we commit.

Just to add here's another article called the "Ethanol Enigma"....some interesting reading about the push for more ethanol:

www.canada.com...

brill

[edit on 2-4-2007 by brill]

Ethanol comes from plant material that has to be grown and thus takes CO2 out of the atmosphere while producing it, so it seems like it would pretty much balance out to me, unlike gasoline which is just extracted from the mineral deposits ground and released into the air, always adding more.

Something else to consider. From the second source Mr. Rees also makes mention of the following

because it would take five or six times more land to grow fuel for an automobile than it would to feed a person

So there are other aspects to contend with as well here. There may be a trade-off between growing the product and land consumption based on our needs. I think it has been widely publicized that this is a growing field, no pun intended, and it may be difficult to keep up.

brill

I knew there was a good reason I didn't trust the ethanol crowd.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
I knew there was a good reason I didn't trust the ethanol crowd.

I hope your not misinterpreting what I've said. I'm all for renewable and clean sources of energy and I still believe ethanol has a place. What I think needs to happen is that more research is required before we blindly throw billions of dollars at something because global warming is all the rage currently.

brill

[edit on 2-4-2007 by brill]

posted by brill

Ethanol is a renewable source which is a perk. However if the contaminants are present and in some cases elevated where exactly are we going with this. US/Canadian governments are spending billions on this technology but it appears more research is needed before we commit. Just to add here's another article called the "Ethanol Enigma" Some interesting reading about the push for more ethanol: brill [Edited by Don W]

Comment. If the United States taxpayers did not subsidize the growing of corn and if the United States did not require the use of ethanol in motor fuels, there would be no ethanol outside its traditional use at the motor sports race tracks. It is used there because ethanol will not pre-ignite, or pre-detonate or “ping.” Higher compressions are feasible than with gasoline.

Q1. If it is true that ethanol contains 80% of the BTU as gasoline, and it consumes more BTUs to grow, harvest, process and refine than the finisheed product (ethanol) contains, then what is the purpose of this anyway, in terms of energy conservation or independence and global warming issues?

Q.2. With 1 billion people going to sleep every night, hungry, and 28,000 children drying every day from malnutrition and diseases exacerbated by malnutrition - a nicer word for starvation - how can we justify morally or ethically the use of millions of tons of corn to feed our fat cars? Ref. Christian Childrens Fund for daily death toll.

[edit on 4/2/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite

Comment. If the United States taxpayers did not subsidize the growing of corn and if the United States did not require the use of ethanol in motor fuels, there would be no ethanol outside its traditional use at the motor sports race tracks. It is used there because ethanol will not pre-ignite, or pre-detonate or “ping.” Higher compressions are feasible than with gasoline.

Q1. If it is true that ethanol contains 80% of the BTU as gasoline, and it consumes more BTUs to grow, harvest, process and refine than the finisheed product (ethanol) contains, then what is the purpose of this anyway, in terms of energy conservation or independence and global warming issues?

Q.2. With 1 billion people going to sleep every night, hungry, and 28,000 children drying every day from malnutrition and diseases exacerbated by malnutrition - a nicer word for starvation - how can we justify morally or ethically the use of millions of tons of corn to feed our fat cars? Ref. Christian Childrens Fund for daily death toll.

[edit on 4/2/2007 by donwhite]

A1. It consumes alot of BTU's to grow, but the energy isnt coming from us, it's coming from the sun and nutrients in the ground. This is the basis of all plant life. So it really doesnt matter how much energy is needed to grow it, it's coming from an infinite source.
As for refining it, I'm not entirely familiar with the process behind that, someone else will have to look into that one.

A2. Economics doesnt work like that. There isnt a limited amount of manpower put into this. If the market for bio-fuels grows due to this, there will be more attention placed on farms, allowing more efficient grow operations in the future.
This happens with all products, if they go into mass production, they are easier to get your hands on.

posted by johnsky

A1. It consumes a lot of BTU's to grow, but the energy isn’t coming from us, it's coming from the sun and nutrients in the ground. This is the basis of all plant life. So it really doesn’t matter how much energy is needed to grow it, it's coming from an infinite source. [Edited by Don W]

I don’t mean to quibble, so let me quibble. I always thought the reference to “btu to grow” referred to the various steps in agriculture, breaking the field, making it ready for planting, fertilizing the field, bringing in the seed, planting, harvesting, accumulating the crop, shipping, and so on.

A2. If the market for bio-fuels grows due to this, there will be more attention placed on farms, allowing more efficient grow operations in the future. This happens with all products, if they go into mass production, they are easier to get your hands on.

My point was we do not know the actual cost of a gallon of ethanol if we disregard the tax money the Government pays the farmer to grow the corn and if there is a guaranteed market for the refiners which allows them to function in a non-competitive, subsidized world. If the public knew the real cost of ethanol and other bio-fuels, it might take a different view. Regardless, we ought to know these facts.

I hope you are not offering an economic theory that the more ethanol we burn in our too big vehicles the more cornbread the poor of Africa will have to eat? And it would follow, the fewer children would starve to death every day?

[edit on 4/3/2007 by donwhite]

Corn Ethanol is a scam. It's political power is based on subsidies to farmers.
Ethanol is less efficient than gas. It takes gas to grow corn. The prices of food would increase. It's a damn waste of good farmland imho, the most precious resource America after the great lakes.

Basically, Ethanol will always be joined at the hip with big oil. They love the idea. Less efficient expensive ethanol mixed with gas is just fine by them.

the use of ethanol is simply shortening the carbon cycle. When we grow plants, we take carbon (co2) out of the atmosphere, which goes into the plants, then is burned. But when we take carbon out of the ground (oil) and burn it, it adds to the carbon in the atmosphere. Ethanol eliminates the addition of oil into the atmosphere, therefore reducing overall carbon dioxide and reducing global warming.

Even if the amount of co2 produced by ethanol is exactly the same as gasoline, the source of the carbon is different, which keeps the carbon in the atmosphere constant instead of adding to the problem.

For Biofuels, I favor Jatropha for a few reasons. First, is it's high Oil content(about 50% IIRC), Second is its ability to grow in relatively Arid conditions and Third it's Non Edible.

www.ecoworld.com...

Here is a good article about it.

Ethanol is less efficient than gas. It takes gas to grow corn.

Not if the Farmer sets aside part of his crop for his own personal use.

[edit on 3-4-2007 by sardion2000]

I'm not exactly bought on E85 just yet, though I will admit i'm not terribly familiar with it. Although it supposedly reduces our "foreign need" for oil (isn't alot of the ethanol made in Brazil?), take a look at the fuel economy ratings for gasoline engines vs E85 vehicles at fueleconomy.gov .

2007 Chevrolet Suburban
E85 Gasoline
mpg city 11 15
mpg highway 15 20

2007 Chevy Impala
E85 Gasoline
mpg city 16 21
mpg highway 23 31

EPA fuel ratings are quite a bit worse for E85 vehicles. It is noteworthy, however, that the site also says that the E85 suburban, at 2400 dollars a year in the fuel, will burn 8 barrels of petrol per year, whereas a gasoline Suburban, at 2000 dollars a year, will burn 20 barrels of petrol. While it certainly does not benefit the consumer, it benefits oil usage.

However, does anyone know how many cars, factories, boats, ATVs, and millions of other oil using vehicles and machines would have to be converted to E85 in order to actually put a dent in oil consumption? Quite a few. I read a statistic somewhere that if even a quarter of our cars ran on E85, it would reduce oil usage by a small fraction.

IMO, ethanol is just a way for the American auto companies to get tax breaks. Their vehicles seem more fuel efficient in the eyes of the EPA, since they technically do use less petrol, but do they truly benefit the consumer at all?

Hybrids, diesel gas, and E85 fuel are nice stop gaps that may reduce needs for oil, but look at what's going on. Americans are still chosing full size trucks and SUVs and not using them to tow, haul, or offroad. I drive into suburban neighborhoods and see that soccer moms are transporting their kids in 6000 lb Ford Excursions that aren't even rated for gas mileage. I see that GM still doesn't really try to build a good small car (they import some from South Korea? nice try), and still focus mainly on their full size trucks and SUVs - yet people complain that Toyota is taking over, who has made 40 mpg cars for years. Aside from all this, it is projected that in the coming decades, India and China will drive more cars than America does. Wonder what that will do to overall oil consumption?

Oil companies don't want us to find new technologies. Oil will run out someday, but this can be debated all day in the peak oil forum. No idea when, but it will eventually, and gas prices continue to rise, and wars continue to be waged in the Middle East. Can you imagine how many problems an alternative energy source, IE Hydrogen, could answer? Now yeah yeah hydrogen has its drawbacks - requiring energy to harvest it, riding around in cars w/ 15,000 psi fuel tanks, etc. But come on. The big companies need to focus more on alternative sources. At least Honda has a working car, though it is darned expensive, and who knows what an accident would do to it.

As bad as it sounds, some day oil in the US will be like it has been in Europe. Aside from the horrible inflation it would cause, I'd be curious to see what kind of innovation this country could really produce when gasoline prices reach 5, 7,10,etc, dollars per gallon at the pump. Maybe then we could really see new technologies come out faster.

On a sidenote; before I get some of the expected "tree loving hippie" bs- despite my opinions, I myself drive a full size SUV when I need to; and before I get called a hypocrite, I actually use it to tow boats and cargo around. Just my opinion that these stopgap hybrids, E85, etc, while nice, won't solve the real problem of oil usage in the long run.

Peace

I haven't really looked too much into the whole ethanol gas thing, but just a couple things jump out at me.

I'm always skeptic of unpublish federal reports. Tax payers money go into paying for these investigations. If you get good data let someone publish it in a scientific journal and take credit for it.

I believe the two main biprodcuts from the combustion of the ethanol gas is CO2 and H20 vapor. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, so yes the study is probably correct. But if you had to choose between water vapor from ethanol consumption or carbon monoxide from regular gas which one would you rather breath? No brainer.

oh noes, not this one again...


fertilizer does not grow on trees, it's often contaminated with heavy metals and its production requires the use of fossil fuels....

we are in effect eating fossil fuel


so, in a nutshell, if you cut the use of synthetic fertilitzer, you'd of course reduce energy consumption without jumping through all the hoops to grow and process ethanol and blend it with gas, reducing land use AND firmly shutting the door for GM crops (see also this thread) and industrial agriculture with its non-existant quality standards, which is hitting the wall head on in too many places (like punjab, India).

this is what big biz fears, their models fail and everyone will see it, unless they get to blend their insanity into a protected market like fuel. it's a desperate attempt at creating a new market, heavily subsidized, protected by artificial religios dogma and media barrage. screw reailty, screw the rainforests (what is left of them) and cash in on unsuspecting governments who are alledgedly fighitng global warming by destroying natural plant life and habitats.

Q: what is more conducive to an intact environment: forests or a calculated reduction of carbon dioxide?


the only way to make biofuels worthwhile is to use waste products which can't be utilized in other ways. composting for organic fertilizer may easily beat ethanol production, though and i'm not sure if focusing on fuels is a good idea when people turn a blind eye to synthetic fertilizers.

[edit on 3.4.2007 by Long Lance]

this is what big biz fears, their models fail and everyone will see it, unless they get to blend their insanity into a protected market like fuel. it's a desperate attempt at creating a new market, heavily subsidized, protected by artificial religios dogma and media barrage. screw reailty, screw the rainforests (what is left of them) and cash in on unsuspecting governments who are alledgedly fighitng global warming by destroying natural plant life and habitats.

This really struck me as being just another way to keep control of the huge dollars involved in this whole energy industry sector.

I am at the point where I want to run and hide when Govt and big business climb into the sack together. You know who will get S*****d.

I never voted for this. Why should I be forced to use only the technology that is deemed in my best interest to use. I demand more options, an actual voice, and you can't tell me there are none or I don't have a choice.

We are not free, but rather victims of forced servitude.

Unfortunately it won't matter what fuel source we go to, the government will allways place a road tax on it... typically to the point where it's just as costly as gasoline.

It's not really about cost this time. It's all about the carbon footprint.

Now, I'm not going to argue that ethanol, hydrogen, or electric cars are perfect... far from it. Every fuel source has it's problems, but the trick is using a fuel source that causes less emissions than gasoline.

Even if it's a rather small drop in emissions, it's still worth it, due to the massive amount of vehicles on the road today.

-Hydrogen requires power to split from water. So youre still using some fuel source somewhere to generate the electricity to break down that hydrogen.
-Ethanol requires land to be cleared. Hopefully we can do that through terraforming the abundance of dead land we seem to have, but I get the impression big buisness would prefer to just clearcut a forrest.
-Electrical cars have one drawback that most people don't look at, you have to charge them using electricity. The reason this is a bad thing is, our power grid simply isn't built to handle that kind of power distribution, to allow a world full of cars to recharge. We would have to re-make the power grid before everyone can use electrical cars.
-Gasoline has a HUGE carbon footprint, causes smog, and oil spills alone have already caused the endangerment of alot of species.

Essentially, there is no perfect fuel source. There is however, the lesser of the evils.

The day we can start a cold fusion reaction in the trunk of our cars is the day we no longer have to worry about these problems... but we're a long way off from that, so it is up to our generation to solve the issue for now.

posted by johnsky

Unfortunately it won't matter what fuel source we go to, the government will always place a road tax on it... typically to the point where it's just as costly as gasoline. It's not really about cost this time. It's all about the carbon footprint. Essentially, there is no perfect fuel source. There is however, the lesser of the evils. [Edited by Don W]

Somebody has to pay for roads, so it might as well be those who use them.

OK, here’s what we do. Limit engine size to 1 liter for gas, 1.2 liter for diesel. Limit vehicle weight to 1,200 kg. 2,640 lbs. One car per adult. 2 and 3 wheel vehicles limited to 500 cc. No limit on unicycles.

This is when we get serious.

eats plastic and fiberglass gass lines, o-rings, and gas tanks in older cars trucks and boats!

Amphibious mechanic 18 years

posted by IntelRetard

What It Does Do: eats plastic and fiberglass gas lines, o-rings, and gas tanks in older cars trucks and boats! Amphibious mechanic 18 years

Ethanol has been around as long as we have made beer and wine. To purify it, we use the whiskey making process, distillation. Which is a large user of btu’s. if we spend 30,000 btu to make a gallon of ethanol which contains 28,000 btu, what have we gained?

Once you burst the ethanol balloon the advocates have a fall back position - it has lower or better emissions. An esoteric argument like the one we witnessed these past 6 years when B43 said global warming was a Democratic farce. If your argument wont prevail on the up and up, then go down and devious!

Aside from markedly poorer mileage ethanol is also a difficult fluid to contain, per Mr I/R above reminding us based on his long hand-on experience. I also claim some first hand knowledge. One of my former employers had me arrange to buy 10 55 gallon barrels of ethanol. It was not outrageously expensive in 1995, when I did that but I can’t remember the cost per barrel. He is a Street Rod builder-hobbyist and has had several supercharged engines in his many cars using GM's Detroit Diesel Rootes type belt driven blowers.

This whole “thing” over ethanol is due to Senator Bob Dole of Kansas and Archer Daniels Midland. Back when he was Majority Leader of the Senate, they worked hand in glove to create a perceived USE for ethanol. Like so many complex issues, it was easy to bumfuzzle the public. See Note below.

It all started as a small to medium shake-down of the taxpayers by ADM. After which I’m sure ADM properly ‘reciprocated’ to Senator Dole. It was small picking’s then (1980s) so nobody gave a dam and maybe too many of them (our Congresspersons) had their own scams working. Ask Butch Cunningham. Jack Abramoff. Tom DeLay. Mr. Nye. Et al.

The oil industry cares not a whit about ethanol because they know the truth, ethanol is a net energy consumer. And the taxpayers pay for it 2 times. Once when they give Federal funds to corn farmers, and again when they pay inflated prices at the pump forced by EPA special rules.


Note: You must remember that an internal combustion engine is a heat conversion device. As set up, such an engine turns heat into rotary motion. The more heat you put in, the more motion you get out. The lower the heat content of your fuel means you need more fuel to get the same amount of motion. These are the laws of nature and are not subject to repeal by the laws of politics. DW

[edit on 4/5/2007 by donwhite]

People, ethanol may be very efficient energy source, just not ethanol from corn.Switchgrass is much better option (at least for US). It contains much more ethanol than corn, grows almost verywhere and needs almost none fertilizers.