how do you think this ethanol thing will play out?

[The_Jeff]

Am trying to find data on this alleged shortage of ethanol, whether I'll be affected, and who in general will.

Am curious from the angle, that if the 5% ethanol is unavailable, the "rest" of the gas would be held up and not delivered to states/counties that require it.

I found a chevron reference that "base gas" to be blended with alcohol needs a lower RVP but can be lower octane. So it's not necessarily a direct replacement for regular unleaded sold "in the sticks". Therefore it would require some logistics if there were a big batch of this stuff queued up waiting for the ethanol.

After Katrina, the EPA waived all sorts of fuel regs like RVP levels as an aid to refiners. I find myself cynical that they would waive standards as easily again. I further wonder if, say, a state's governor can muster the right to order fuel that violates EPA standards. (And how viciously ADM and other ethanol industry types would fight that.) We apparantly have an ethanol cartel (in a midwest voting bloc that swings either way politically) and I'll be curious to see how tenaciously they can disrupt a fuel supply before others step in... and who those "others" will be.

This map from January 2006 shows ethanol required on the northeast seaboard but it's hard for me to figure how many people and miles travelled this covers compared to the US as a whole. The map seems inaccurate as I hear the midwest states voluntarily sell 89 octane ethanol-ed fuel at the same price as 87 "all gas".

 

[Shannow]

Dunno much about the U.S. ethanol scene.

But down here, 93RON ethanol blend is 4c/litre cheaper than the 91RON petroleum product .

They simply add the ethanol to the regular, and it cheapens the fuel while bumping the Octane.

 

[JHZR2]

Ill chime in here, with a bit more of a broad exposure... but it may be insightful.

Ethanol is government subsidized... their lobbying parties are too strong to overcome the ethanol use requirement easily. It is smart to use something that is renewable, just to get the ball rolling... need and necessity creates innovation, and hopefully new technologies will come along.

Ultimately nuke to liquid fuel is the only viable solution. The previous Chief of Naval Research was very interested in coal to diesel operations, even at sea... due to how the Navy operates, and their need for a LIQUID, high flashpoint fuel.

In reality, consumers arent that different from the Navy. It would be a HUGE paradigm shift, and a very slow transfer process to move to a new energy carrier, compared to (any) liquid fuel. Whether that liquid fuel is biodiesel, an alcohol hydrocarbon mix, ammonia, etc... liquid fuel is the only reasonable way to transport energy in a high mass and volume specific means.

The issue is not really how much energy that it takes to make ethanol... too many people are too polarized, and spin the numbers too far for anyone to get a good grip of the TRUE energy balance of the process (and dont cite that crap on it taking 130% more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than the energy it provides, unless youve done a rigorous analysis yourself and have a real chemical simulation and energy balance to back it up). Ethanol might be good in some areas where the availability, collection of raw materials and distribution is simple... but that does not cover the whole country.

What will ultimately have to happen is that a number of technologies (Im just talking for IC engines here, not fuel cells, electric cars, etc) will have to be adapted, to produce fuel, fuel diluents, fuel additives, etc. If you have lots of biomass and a collection structure, than likely partial oxidation and reacton of syngas to liquid fuel is a good answer. If you have a lot of natural gas in your area, maybe the creation of natural gas to liquid fuel is the answer... lots of rapeseed? Lots of corn? Lots of cotton? use those oils... Pulp and paper? There are byproducts to be had... coal? how about F-T reactions with sulfur sequestration... The possibilities are endless, and until the idiots with no real technical background relaize that theyre just impeding real progress, nothing will happen. The reality is that there is no one solution for the country... and definitely no real global solution.

Ultimately the EPA and whatnot would have to realize that an econo car with no emissions controls will still have much less gross tonnage of greenhouse gases than a PZEV SUV, and credit the small cars by allowing them to remove some of the expensive and less than necessary emissions controls. This would reduce the costs of the small cars, inherently increase their fuel economy just by removal of some of these controls (remember as emissions reqirements get more strict, economy tends to drop some), and reduce demand all around for fuel.

The EPA getting smart on advanced diesels will also help... Though there are claims of some new diesel moels coming to the US when we get 15ppm diesel, I have my doubts of the widespreadedness (i know its not a word) of diesels... I can hope though...

But thats what I think about that.

JMH

[ April 14, 2006, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: JHZR2 ]

 

[PandaBear]

I think if we have to pay for ethanol alone it would be expensive, but since we are subsidizing the farmers in the state, it is the additional subsidization that cost us as driver rather than tax payers.

But, in the end, it is all politics and whoever get the most lobbists in DC will get the most tax dollars (or fuel dollar in this case) in their pockets.

 

[Shannow]

JHZR2 excellent post.