Ethanol is bad news. We are using food to make fuel and also the whole process has a negative energy balance - it takes more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than the latent energy left in a gallon of ethanol at the end of the process. If one is worried about "greenhouse" emission this isn't a good way to go about it. Also, ethanol causes performance robbing engine deposits and thus higher engine out emissions and less performance. If one looks at BP/Amoco Ultimate - the base fuel is double refined and contains no ethanol. Not only is it the best gasoline on the market but (1) requires less fuel additives to keep an engine spotlessly clean inside and (2) it has more latent heat per gallon - thus one gets more mileage out of one gallon. Ethanol is TERRIBLE for durability as compared to pure gasoline. There are no positives to ethanol - it is driven by the Corn farmer lobby and costs consumers billions each year while providing no value to society.
Having worked 35 years as a chemical engineer in the oil refining business, 8 years in California no less, I have to signal that many of your facts here are wrong. A few examples include: reasons why cars knock, why MTBE was disbanded (not due to toxicity), why ethanol is mandated in gasoline (because its an oxygenate) etc. Also, ethanol is hygroscopic (mixed with small amounts of water it falls out of solution leaving low octane gasoline in your tank that will produce a knock). I don't think I'm being defensive of my industry to say the level of nefariousness is probably overstated here. I don't pretend to know the details of what managements knew about the extent of the toxicity of LEL, but keep in mind Refineries can use hydrocarbon blending components to produce high octane gasoline without additives, it's just more expensive to produce. Because LEL is so cheap and far more effective in octane enhancement than any other agent, I'm sure it seemed like a fabulous way to lower gasoline prices for everyone. If it was obvious at first this would be toxic, refiners would have no problem if it was banned. The higher prices are always passed to the consumer. But LEL was no boon for the refiner. Look up how profitable oil refineries have been in the last 40 years. Lucky to get 5%. Cigarette companies on the other hand take a direct hit if cigarettes are found to be unhealthy; therefore, their incentive to lie and deceive was far greater in the past and their behavior was abominable. Maybe the Oil Industry was just as bad, but it wouldn't make sense, given the elimination of LEL has basically no impact on profits. Much more importantly than all of this is the position you have been taking in many of your articles that the drive to reduce CO2 emissions is valid in general, though you are clear this is not true in all cases. I'm very aligned with most of your positions, but I think you would do a great service to educate yourself about why spending trillions of dollars to divert away from liquid fuels will only save us a fraction of a global warming degree by 2100, and how those resources would be infinitely better served by either addressing different ways to stop global warming or preparing for that extra fraction of a degree in 80 years. There are so many positives tied to increased CO2 and increased warming that are never discussed. Surely, we at least need to show pros and cons to get a better picture of how serious the problem is.
Thank you for articulating the real subject of this article in the way you did. It not only informed me of unknown information (anti-knocking,not fuel). As a human I tend to get caught up in my ego and start thinking I know most things(ha) but then I get humbled, then remember how small I am and I smile. Thank you for taking the time to share with strangers.
We would all like to see what engineering units you are using to measure energy positive and energy negative. You give the impression that a numerical analysis is beyond your ken. Having gone to jschool, that would not be unusual. Being literate is, of course, essential. Being innumerate confines you to hyperbole.
Several countries used Mangenese additives that appear non-toxic and which would not lead to water absorption in the fuel. Also it would be good to mention the pioneering work of geoscientist Clare Patterson who risked his position at Caltech to expose the danger of lead (Pb) in fuel.
But, the increased farming and reduced buffer zone along the Mississippi river have drastically increased the fertilizer runoff into the gulf of Mexico. There the fertilizer is used by the algae and created one off the largest dead zones for fish in the world...., blossoming every spring.
Our friend Tom Migley went on to invent the refrigerant R12, which depletes the ozone layer and is a huge contributor to global warming. Has any other human in history done more damage to Planet Earth than Reg Midgley?
Josh, your comment is factually correct, but a little housekeeping... The last name is spelled "Midgley." Then, why did you call Midgley "Reg" the 2nd time you mention his name?
Incidentally, I often make typos when I write, so if you happen to find any in my comments please don't hesitate to point them out to me.
Pleases recall the words of Lord Kelvin, after whom the temperature scale is named:
"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind: it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science."
Absolutely - and doubly negative that current ethanol production competes with food supply. Where are we with research on enzymes that will allow the industrial scale production of ethanol from cellulose using weeds as feed stock ?
Not peer reviewed? Hahahahaha. All of my editorials, essays, and reports are peer reviewed. The complete list, which includes university professors, engineers, business leaders, government agency personnel, and lots of automobile experts is about 300 different people... and not all are fans of alternative fuels.
Incorrect. Ethanol is energy positive. Gasoline is energy negative. Irwin, why don't you just ask me to prove it, and then we can get this point over with.
Joe, when you don't understand the issue and facts, as you obviously don't, then my comment probably does seem like a meaningless platitude to you. If you think what I wrote is incorrect, all you had to do was to ask the question that Irwin never did.
You still didn't ask the pertinent question: "Can you prove that ethanol is energy positive." You're afraid to ask it, and the other loser (Irwin) was afraid to ask it.
Very informative article - i love the way you look at things with a fresh pair of eyes. Would you consider doing a deep dive on Acid Rain. I have a feeling that it matters.
Marc, this is NOT about substantiation or not and your site links are very good and very informative. It's about your anger in telling people to "Shut their mouth". Calm down, make your points and leave people to make up their own minds without inciting or degrading them.
My anger? I have no anger about this, I find it extremely humorous. It's you and others who come onto this page and post false information, I think that shows "anger" on your part. Why would you do this? You could say that you were just doing it as a joke, and if so, then now state that you meant all the negative information as a joke. Otherwise, intentionally putting forth false information is a sign of hostility.
Doomberg please ensure you exert some editorial control over comments made on this site. I have no objections to people disagreeing, but once the language becomes inflamed I certainly lose interest in reading comments. It should matter whether an individual is right, believes themselves to be right or simply has an opinion that they are right; aggressive personal comments and insults should not be tolerated and this thread has one individual who seems to be just plain angry....
X75, I agree completely. There's no reason to allow unidentified people to post unsubstantiated comments about subjects that they know little or nothing about. It doesn't help to educate anyone. And so, rather than you making some vague, unsubstantiated negative comments about ethanol, why don't you reveal your true name, as I have done, and provide specific citations and references that you personally know about and can prove?
It takes as much, if not more energy to produce the energy equivalent of a barrel of ethanol than the energy output of that barrel of ethanol. This is not, and never has been a matter of dispute. The thermodynamics proves it.
Imagine producing fuel from two sources. A. A barrel of crude oil, and; B. A field of corn. Getting fuel (gasoline) from crude requires, simply put, that you distill it.
Contrast getting fuel from corn. You need to till the field, grow the corn, harvest it, grind it, ferment it, distill it, and then dry the distillate.
The result:
Corn ethanol’s EROI – Energy Returned On Invested is so low, it barely provides one net barrel of fuel to the market for one barrel worth of energy that it took to produce it.
The EROI, or EROEI, Energy Returned On Energy Invested
For an offshore drilling platform: EROEI = 13 (13 times more energy output than input)
See Jones, J Pet Environ Biotechnol 2013, 4:4, DOI: 10.4172/2157-7463.1000150
See Figure 1: EROEI for US oil over the period 1930-2000, showing an EROEI for crude oil ranging from 100 in 1930 to 11 in the year 2000.
See "Seeking to Understand the Reasons for Different Energy Return on Investment (EROI) Estimates for Biofuels" in the peer review journal Sustainability 2011, 3, 2413-2432; doi:10.3390/su3122413, by Charles A.S. Hall 1,*, Bruce E. Dale 2 and David Pimentel 3
which give 0.76 as the ratio for corn ethanol: Put in one barrel worth of energy and get 0.76 in return.
"Corn Ethanol Is Now a Climate-Change Scandal", Robert Bryce, InsideSources September 8, 2016
Since the time of its original publication in 2018, I have written and published another six or seven dozen reports and studies that further explain the items I refer to in the book. So if you would narrow down for me the assertions you wish to challenge, I'd be absolutely delighted to respond.
David Blume - Alcohol Can be A Gas! Book is worth getting
Farm the farm bill
Interesting, always believed ethanol was a highly politically motivated additive. Thanks for the other side of the story.
Ethanol is bad news. We are using food to make fuel and also the whole process has a negative energy balance - it takes more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than the latent energy left in a gallon of ethanol at the end of the process. If one is worried about "greenhouse" emission this isn't a good way to go about it. Also, ethanol causes performance robbing engine deposits and thus higher engine out emissions and less performance. If one looks at BP/Amoco Ultimate - the base fuel is double refined and contains no ethanol. Not only is it the best gasoline on the market but (1) requires less fuel additives to keep an engine spotlessly clean inside and (2) it has more latent heat per gallon - thus one gets more mileage out of one gallon. Ethanol is TERRIBLE for durability as compared to pure gasoline. There are no positives to ethanol - it is driven by the Corn farmer lobby and costs consumers billions each year while providing no value to society.
Having worked 35 years as a chemical engineer in the oil refining business, 8 years in California no less, I have to signal that many of your facts here are wrong. A few examples include: reasons why cars knock, why MTBE was disbanded (not due to toxicity), why ethanol is mandated in gasoline (because its an oxygenate) etc. Also, ethanol is hygroscopic (mixed with small amounts of water it falls out of solution leaving low octane gasoline in your tank that will produce a knock). I don't think I'm being defensive of my industry to say the level of nefariousness is probably overstated here. I don't pretend to know the details of what managements knew about the extent of the toxicity of LEL, but keep in mind Refineries can use hydrocarbon blending components to produce high octane gasoline without additives, it's just more expensive to produce. Because LEL is so cheap and far more effective in octane enhancement than any other agent, I'm sure it seemed like a fabulous way to lower gasoline prices for everyone. If it was obvious at first this would be toxic, refiners would have no problem if it was banned. The higher prices are always passed to the consumer. But LEL was no boon for the refiner. Look up how profitable oil refineries have been in the last 40 years. Lucky to get 5%. Cigarette companies on the other hand take a direct hit if cigarettes are found to be unhealthy; therefore, their incentive to lie and deceive was far greater in the past and their behavior was abominable. Maybe the Oil Industry was just as bad, but it wouldn't make sense, given the elimination of LEL has basically no impact on profits. Much more importantly than all of this is the position you have been taking in many of your articles that the drive to reduce CO2 emissions is valid in general, though you are clear this is not true in all cases. I'm very aligned with most of your positions, but I think you would do a great service to educate yourself about why spending trillions of dollars to divert away from liquid fuels will only save us a fraction of a global warming degree by 2100, and how those resources would be infinitely better served by either addressing different ways to stop global warming or preparing for that extra fraction of a degree in 80 years. There are so many positives tied to increased CO2 and increased warming that are never discussed. Surely, we at least need to show pros and cons to get a better picture of how serious the problem is.
Thank you for articulating the real subject of this article in the way you did. It not only informed me of unknown information (anti-knocking,not fuel). As a human I tend to get caught up in my ego and start thinking I know most things(ha) but then I get humbled, then remember how small I am and I smile. Thank you for taking the time to share with strangers.
We would all like to see what engineering units you are using to measure energy positive and energy negative. You give the impression that a numerical analysis is beyond your ken. Having gone to jschool, that would not be unusual. Being literate is, of course, essential. Being innumerate confines you to hyperbole.
Several countries used Mangenese additives that appear non-toxic and which would not lead to water absorption in the fuel. Also it would be good to mention the pioneering work of geoscientist Clare Patterson who risked his position at Caltech to expose the danger of lead (Pb) in fuel.
But, the increased farming and reduced buffer zone along the Mississippi river have drastically increased the fertilizer runoff into the gulf of Mexico. There the fertilizer is used by the algae and created one off the largest dead zones for fish in the world...., blossoming every spring.
Our friend Tom Migley went on to invent the refrigerant R12, which depletes the ozone layer and is a huge contributor to global warming. Has any other human in history done more damage to Planet Earth than Reg Midgley?
Josh, your comment is factually correct, but a little housekeeping... The last name is spelled "Midgley." Then, why did you call Midgley "Reg" the 2nd time you mention his name?
Incidentally, I often make typos when I write, so if you happen to find any in my comments please don't hesitate to point them out to me.
Please be so kind as to define your terms
Energy +ve
Energy -ve
In what engineering units is your measure?
Pleases recall the words of Lord Kelvin, after whom the temperature scale is named:
"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind: it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science."
William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin
You might not understand this, but some of your readers will
PRODUCING ETHANOL CONSUMES MORE ENERGY THAN THAT DERIVED FROM BURING IT AS A FUEL.
ALL OF YOUR WISHFUL THINKING TO THE CONTRARY DOES NOT CHANGE THE PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY
Absolutely - and doubly negative that current ethanol production competes with food supply. Where are we with research on enzymes that will allow the industrial scale production of ethanol from cellulose using weeds as feed stock ?
Thanks for your ignorant comment about the fuel vs food issue. Things have been getting stale on this message board.
BAM! Closing the Door to the Food vs. Ethanol Fuel Argument
https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2021/08/24/1037055-bam-closing-book-food-vs-ethanol-fuel-argument.html
Self licking ice cream cone. That you wrote an article, with no peer review, makes you no better than all the other noise on the interweb.
Not peer reviewed? Hahahahaha. All of my editorials, essays, and reports are peer reviewed. The complete list, which includes university professors, engineers, business leaders, government agency personnel, and lots of automobile experts is about 300 different people... and not all are fans of alternative fuels.
Incorrect. Ethanol is energy positive. Gasoline is energy negative. Irwin, why don't you just ask me to prove it, and then we can get this point over with.
Meaningless platitude
Joe, when you don't understand the issue and facts, as you obviously don't, then my comment probably does seem like a meaningless platitude to you. If you think what I wrote is incorrect, all you had to do was to ask the question that Irwin never did.
You're hiding behind unsupported accusations, a sure sign of weakness.
JoeSchmo - Considering that I am one of the world's foremost experts on ethanol fuel, I don't need to hide behind anything.
THE ETHANOL PAPERS - https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2018/10/12/632678-ethanol-papers-massive-book-provides-whole-story-ethanol-fuel-free.html.
You still didn't ask the pertinent question: "Can you prove that ethanol is energy positive." You're afraid to ask it, and the other loser (Irwin) was afraid to ask it.
Very informative article - i love the way you look at things with a fresh pair of eyes. Would you consider doing a deep dive on Acid Rain. I have a feeling that it matters.
Marc, this is NOT about substantiation or not and your site links are very good and very informative. It's about your anger in telling people to "Shut their mouth". Calm down, make your points and leave people to make up their own minds without inciting or degrading them.
My anger? I have no anger about this, I find it extremely humorous. It's you and others who come onto this page and post false information, I think that shows "anger" on your part. Why would you do this? You could say that you were just doing it as a joke, and if so, then now state that you meant all the negative information as a joke. Otherwise, intentionally putting forth false information is a sign of hostility.
Doomberg please ensure you exert some editorial control over comments made on this site. I have no objections to people disagreeing, but once the language becomes inflamed I certainly lose interest in reading comments. It should matter whether an individual is right, believes themselves to be right or simply has an opinion that they are right; aggressive personal comments and insults should not be tolerated and this thread has one individual who seems to be just plain angry....
X75, I agree completely. There's no reason to allow unidentified people to post unsubstantiated comments about subjects that they know little or nothing about. It doesn't help to educate anyone. And so, rather than you making some vague, unsubstantiated negative comments about ethanol, why don't you reveal your true name, as I have done, and provide specific citations and references that you personally know about and can prove?
Dear Mr. Rauch,
What do you offer as proof of your asertion?
Irwin
Sir,
It takes as much, if not more energy to produce the energy equivalent of a barrel of ethanol than the energy output of that barrel of ethanol. This is not, and never has been a matter of dispute. The thermodynamics proves it.
Imagine producing fuel from two sources. A. A barrel of crude oil, and; B. A field of corn. Getting fuel (gasoline) from crude requires, simply put, that you distill it.
Contrast getting fuel from corn. You need to till the field, grow the corn, harvest it, grind it, ferment it, distill it, and then dry the distillate.
The result:
Corn ethanol’s EROI – Energy Returned On Invested is so low, it barely provides one net barrel of fuel to the market for one barrel worth of energy that it took to produce it.
The EROI, or EROEI, Energy Returned On Energy Invested
For an offshore drilling platform: EROEI = 13 (13 times more energy output than input)
https://peakoil.com/geology/energy-return-on-energy-invested-eroei-for-crude-oil-and-other-sources-of-energy
See Jones, J Pet Environ Biotechnol 2013, 4:4, DOI: 10.4172/2157-7463.1000150
See Figure 1: EROEI for US oil over the period 1930-2000, showing an EROEI for crude oil ranging from 100 in 1930 to 11 in the year 2000.
See "Seeking to Understand the Reasons for Different Energy Return on Investment (EROI) Estimates for Biofuels" in the peer review journal Sustainability 2011, 3, 2413-2432; doi:10.3390/su3122413, by Charles A.S. Hall 1,*, Bruce E. Dale 2 and David Pimentel 3
which give 0.76 as the ratio for corn ethanol: Put in one barrel worth of energy and get 0.76 in return.
"Corn Ethanol Is Now a Climate-Change Scandal", Robert Bryce, InsideSources September 8, 2016
Respectfully yours,
I. Richman
Irwin, I imagine you're MOT. If so, act like it. You should be a whole lot smarter.
Ethanol is energy positive, it is gasoline that is energy negative. You're citing Robert Bryce. I guess it's safe to say that you never read my 6 part 70-page review and rebuttal to Bryce "Gusher of Lies" book. You can find it at https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2017/04/05/365787-truth-about-ethanol-review-and-reply-to-robert-bryce-s.html.
Contained within this review/rebuttal you will find my extensive comments on David Pimental.
Irwin, thanks for asking. Of course, you might specify which assertion you are asking about so that I could directly respond, but to say you time I'll simply direct you to my 600-page book "THE ETHANOL PAPERS." You can read it online for FREE at https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2018/10/12/632678-ethanol-papers-massive-book-provides-whole-story-ethanol-fuel-free.html. It contains hundreds of citations and verifiable references.
Since the time of its original publication in 2018, I have written and published another six or seven dozen reports and studies that further explain the items I refer to in the book. So if you would narrow down for me the assertions you wish to challenge, I'd be absolutely delighted to respond.