As long as we continue the silly import bans on ethanol, we cannot.

Brazil uses sugarcane ethanol, which is far more efficient to produce than the corn ethanol we are attempting to use in the US. Burning corn ethanol generates barely more energy than was used to manufacture it.

I am far more interested in butanol, as they claim it can replace gasoline in cars with no modifications.

That sugar cane ethanol works in a warm climate place, but not where it's cold. It doesn't stay liquid.

While ethanol has gotten the push, I half-wonder why soy fuels haven't gone further. Yes, I realize that ethanol is pushed because of the lobbying efforts of the corn producers, hence, half-wonder. But from what I have learned, the soy fuels are good, especially in being more lubricious where ethanol fuels dry and ruin rubber engine parts.

Ultimately, there is nothing better for the proliferation of alternative fuels than a market for them. I see hopeful signs here in Indiana, where corn and soybeans are both grown in abundance. I can get either E85 ethanol or soy biodiesel within a five minute drive of my home. That wasn't true five years ago.

Check into a project called Power Train. It's a project of the Sierra Railroad, wherein all 48 locomotives use soy biodiesel. The CEO of the railroad is interested in reviewing the performance numbers for the fuel, because if it can be shown that the biodiesel performs as well as regular diesel, he believes the chances are good for convincing the big Class 1 railroads (Union Pacific, BNSF, CSX, Norfolk Southern, & Kansas City Southern) to make the switch. That's a big deal, as they are the largest consumers of diesel fuel in the world.

I agree that soy bio-diesel should be looked at closely and encouraged in the States (and elsewhere), as it is a better use of soy than for food.

Mankind made enormous economic and environmental progress once he was freed from biofuels.

Returning to them is likely to cause untold environmental damage.

Dangers of Biofuels

If we had embraced the idea of ethanol 30 years ago with the gas crisis, we might be in the very same place that Brazil is right now. Until we stop subsidizing farmers to NOT grow things in this country, we're not even close to getting self-sufficient with any kind of ethanol (corn or other). It's at least 20 years out, if not more.

Are we ready to start leaning on other countries for feedstocks? And that's not even tackling this subject: Conclusive evidence of a postive net energy yield in ethanol production.

Bush running down there puffing himself up is disingenuous at best. An oil man like him only cares about ethanol if money can be made at it. Remember, this is the guy who, until a month or so ago, was in denial about global warming.

I think people in this country are going to need to wake up, cut back the excess, return to their city centers, clean them up and be more mindful of how they utilize their resources if they care. A consumer society like ours isn't ready for that kind of self-inflicted pain.

Until "Mr. Fusion" from the movie "Back to the Future" is readily available to all Americans, all this talk about ethanol is just talk, really. And the minute gas drops below $1.65 a gallon here, everyone will forget all about this... just like last time.

No, we can't run on Ethanol. Here's why.

1) The USDA "Billion tons of Biomass" report suggests that we have enough cellulosic biomass to make 50-120 billion gallons of ethanol a year.

2) However, we use about 130 billion gallons of gasoline.

3) And most vehicles on the road won't burn E85, only E10, meaning that even if we converted the lot, we'd still come up against the hard limit: we don't have enough cars to run on the stuff.

Now, biobutanol is a better bet - similar conversion technology to cellulosic biomass, but apparently runs in much higher concentrations in standard gasoline engines. So that's one angle: biobutanol.

However, there's still the conversion plant capital issue. Biodiesel capacity costs about $1 per gallon of annual production: 40 million gallons a year of production requires a plant costing about $40 million.

For cellulosic ethanol, the plants we have cost about $5 per gallon of capacity. So do the math: who's got a spare $250 - 700 billion to put into new plant production? Even if the plants get much, much cheaper to build, those are *nasty* numbers.

Best case is biodiesel from algae, and a rapid push towards clean european-style diesel cars. The algae, if grown using the right technology, should produce diesel for about $1.50 a gallon, in seawater ponds. Additionally, in real terms, a gallon of biodiesel is worth about 2.5 gallons of ethanol - ethanol has lower energy density, and Flex-Fuel Vehicle engines are about 40% less efficient than diesel engines.

Still there's no easy answer

Or is there? - the main focus here is on doubling vehicle efficiency, and *that* turns out to be very, very cheap and very, very profitable. The efficiency improvements to save one barrel of oil cost about $12 - $25, and could account for half of our annual consumption...

If we were a smart nation, we'd do two things before beginning any kind of ethanol push: 1) return to glass bottles for low cost items like beverages; and 2) stop using high fructose corn syrup in every single food product. We'd function as a society better, use more renewable resources, have more corn as feedstock and not be an obese excuse for a society. Corporations will see to it that neither happens... and that's the govt's fault.

I agree with the last two suggestions. Staying away from plastic as much as possible (as in bottled beverages, like you suggest) and stopping with the crazy dosage of high fructose corn syrup already (it's in everything!), are both great ways to get this country off it's ass and ready to tackle the harder problems.

NOTHING will get you jokers off your ass to tackle ANYTHING.

Who do you think you're kidding?

You're right. We should all give up and flee to Mexico.

Dave

The big problem with ethanol: too high an ethanol mix in petrol and you can damage the engines of modern cars, which are engineered for specific tolerances.

I know it's not the case in the US but here and in Europe, diesel is now considered THE green fuel - for a start, it's less refined, and with Euro standard emission controls and hard-working particulate filters, these engines no longer pump out legions of black soot. In fact, they pump out virtually nothing. I bought a French-made Peugeot turbo-diesel six months ago that costs me $20 a week to run, and gives me pretty amazing fuel economy figures of close to 5L/100km if I drive it carefully.

The cost of buying it was less than the price of the new Aussie-made Holden (GM) six-cylinder station I wanted originally, which returns typical six-cylinder economy figures. As it's a 1.6 litre engine, it won't be any use for dragging off the young Lebanese boy next door at the traffic lights, but it does have excellent mid-range torque, probably equivalent to a new petrol engine of about 2.4 litres.

On a recent 10-hour drive to the Queensland border, I got there on just under a tank of fuel and drove around for a few days on what remained. The only problem I have is that the Australian government places a tax on diesel that impacts on non-commercial or non-business users, and unlike in Europe, where's it's a cheap fuel, it's costing me about $1.20-$1.30 a litre - the same as Premium Unleaded. Still, $60 (about $US50) gets me a full tank and it lasts the best part of three weeks.

When these kinds of vehicles are engineered to use high-quality biodiesel, the benefits will be even better, both for drivers and the planet. Forget fuel cells, hybrids and ethanol: turbo-diesel and Biodiesel is the way of the future.

You're right. We should all give up and flee to Mexico.

That is why you live in Texas, right Dave?

Someone earlier mentioned that few cars can run on E85. Au Contraire. Almost 2/3 of the cars on the market right now can run E85 and that number will likely go upp.

In the 2007 model year just about any American car will run E85, as will most European cars. The Japanese are lagging behind, especially honda. Toyota is mostly E85 compatible and Nissan offers it as a free 'option'.

Dave

Dave, could I see a source for that 2/3 of vehicles can run on E85? I think you might be thinking of "have an E85 model available" or something - there's no way that 2/3 of the cars on the road can do E85. Are you talking about 2/3 of new car sales? Even that seems high...

Yeah, I'd like to get more information, please.

Just to follow up on my earlier comment, if we saved on the production of plastics and on the corn for high fructose corn syrup, we'd have more oil resources and more corn resources and would a) stand a better chance of avoiding economic ruin while we transitioned, b) we'd all be a lot healthier physically, c) the planet would be a whole lot healthier for the lack of plastic products, and d) we'd have a much greater cushion for such a transition.

I think that ethanol is but one of many solutions in an "octopus" like approach to alternative fuels.

"Venezuela produces a little over three million barrels of oil per day," said Chavez, "to produce the same quantity of ethanol per day, one would have to plant corn and sugar cane in the entire continent, including the cities." "We would be using the fertile land that we have available, the available water, technology, machinery, fertilizers, etcetera, to produce food, not for people, but for the vehicles of the rich - this is something to think about," added Chavez.

Nice of MR to provide evidence that Chavez is an idiot who apparently can't do math in addition to his other shortcomings.

Dave

Dave, could I see a source for that 2/3 of vehicles can run on E85? I think you might be thinking of "have an E85 model available" or something - there's no way that 2/3 of the cars on the road can do E85. Are you talking about 2/3 of new car sales? Even that seems high...

You need to learn about economy of scale. Having an E85 version of a car available means that ALL cars of that model will actually run on E85, because it's not cost effective to modify some to run on E85 and some to not run on E85, especially when E85 compatible vehicles can also run on pure petrol gas.

I did the research on this about 6 months ago and saw a figure of about 65% of the vehicles for the 2008 model year, but I don't recall the source. I'll see if I can track it down. It may have been included in one of my older articles on alternative fuels.

Dave

Dave,

Precisely what part of the Chavez quote did you not understand?

It's even in English.

Dave writes:

Nice of MR to provide evidence that Chavez is an idiot who apparently can't do math in addition to his other shortcomings.

If he could do math his economy wouldn't be so royally screwed up.

Only a socialist could have control of virtually unlimited amounts of money and have people unable to buy food at the same time.

MR, what I didn't understand is how he could do math so badly. Brazil clearly consumes more fuel in a year than Venezuela produces, yet they were able to switch over to using ethanol without clearcutting everything and turning it all into ethanol crops, so Chavez' math cannot possibly be correct.

But I do have a theory. Chavez' perspective on ethanol is suspiciously similar to one which was being promoted by US oil companies a couple of years ago when they wanted to discourage ethanol production. Could it be that his ethanol theory is the result of pure greed?

Dave

Not so fast, Dave. You seem to forget that Brazil is a petroleum-producing country. Only approximately 30% of the fuel in use in Brazil is ethanol. And Brazil has a lot of cane production because it is a HUGE country.

Please keep in mind that Chavez was referring to Venezuela--a country that you have never visited so you would not be expected to know that it is a fairly SMALL country--especially compared to Brazil, which is the size of a continent!

Planting enough sugar cane to yield 3 million barrels a DAY of ethanol would not even be possible in Venezuela! I live in a state which produces sugar cane--and I also know what happens to fields that have been devoted to cane production--they are rendered very quickly useless for any other crops. Cuba found that out the hard way after the massive push to produce cane in the late 60s and early 70s.

As to clavos--wow, are you ignorant! Venezuela is the fastest growing economy in this hemisphere--and one of the fastest in the world. Guess that guy has a much better grasp of math and ECONOMICS than you could even dream of, gusano.

According to the CIA World Fact Book, measured in terms of "GDP_real growth rate," the country with the fastest growing economy in this hemisphere is Trinidad and Tobago, at 12.6%, with Anguilla coming in second at 10.2%. Venezuela weighs in third in the hemisphere at 8.8%; 22nd in the world, behind such powerhouses as Azerbaijan (32.5%), Equatorial Guinea (18.6%), Angola (14.0%), and Sudan (9.6%).

In inflation on the other hand, Venezuela, with 15.8% inflation for 2006 ranked 218th (seventh from the bottom) in the world, ahead of only Afghanistan, the Congo, Burma, Guinea, Iraq, and Zimbabwe.

In unemployment, Venezuela is 20th in the hemisphere (103rd in the world), with a rate of 8.9%. It is beaten by, among others: Guatemala 3.2%, Nicaragua 3.8%, El Salvador 6.0%, Costa Rica 6.6%, Peru 7.2%, Chile 7.8%, Bolivia 7.8%, to name just a few.

Even in GDP (purchasing power parity), considered by economists to be the most accurate measurement of relative prosperity between countries, Venezuela fares badly.

As described in the World Fact Book:

"This entry gives the gross domestic product (GDP) or value of all final goods and services produced within a nation in a given year. A nation's GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates is the sum value of all goods and services produced in the country valued at prices prevailing in the United States. This is the measure most economists prefer when looking at per-capita welfare and when comparing living conditions or use of resources across countries."

Venezuela ranks only 9th in the hemisphere in GDP (PPP), behind (in order) the USA, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Colombia, Chile, and Peru.

Yup, that's a real good economy, all right.

The Woman Who Knows It All says:

Venezuela is the fastest growing economy in this hemisphere--and one of the fastest in the world.

Well, guera, growth rates are, at best, deceptive:

The man who has one dollar and earns another enjoys a 100% growth rate. The man who has a thousand dollars and also earns one dollar, has only a 0.1% growth rate. They both have the same earnings. Which one is better off?

Your hero, Castro-clone "Chango" Chavez is screwing his economy up big time, as outlined in my #24.

History is full of examples of countries whose primary source of revenue was the sale of their natural resources. And throughout history, those that didn't diversify their economies, all failed when the resources ran out; as one day, inevitably, Chavez' oil will run out.

But even before that, the price of oil will plummet as the Global Warming forces assert themselves, gain power, and force the switch to alternative fuels. We all saw what happened in Venezuela just a few months ago with a relatively small and brief drop in the price of a barrel: chaos.

But what's ole Monkey Boy doing? Just like Nero, he fiddles, chasing GWB around South America like a dog nipping at Bush's heels and yapping nonsense.

I look forward to the day when US makes the fuel switch to the extent we can say F you to all the oil producers. To me, that's THE most compelling reason to develop alternative fuels.

I thought Australia's was the top performing and fastest growing economy in the southern hemisphere.

Bastards've been lying to us again, obviously.

No they haven't, lied to you, mate.

It's just that you Southerners are so "Southocentric," you don't realize we're talking Western hemisphere here.

.... bugger ... all these years ...

Lol. "Southocentric". Some of your best work, that old boy. Love it. I bags using it next, too.

Go for it, mate. I'm flattered.

However, I AM a capitalist.

I WILL want royalties.

Have your girl call my girl, and we'll do lunch.

Yankee capitalist running dog. Let's go halves?

Clavos says - *I look forward to the day when US makes the fuel switch to the extent we can say F you to all the oil producers. To me, that's THE most compelling reason to develop alternative fuels.*

agreed - and this should be priority one

troll says:

agreed - and this should be priority one

And as big a project as the Kennedy-led one to put men on the moon.

"And as big a project as the Kennedy-led one to put men on the moon."

I believe the real reason for the moon landings was held from us. They were sent to discover cheese and the theory is, they actually found it but it's since been kept a closely guarded secret because the US doesn't want to give up its monopoly on the manufacture of rubbery cheese slices used in hamburgers.

It's a conspiracy hatched in the cellars of Milwaukee...

"It's a conspiracy hatched in the cellars of Milwaukee..."

Isn't that also the beer and polka capital of America? I'll personally sponsor a beer-discovery mission anywhere in the universe ...

It is, and Wisconsin is where they make all that rubbery cheese. The natives of that wild and primitive land proudly call themselves "cheeseheads." Go figure.

I've seen guys on the TV at the NFL wearing pretend cheeses on their heads ... Green Bay Packers? I want one, if only to frighten my children.

Ah, God...some of the images we Yanks present to the world...:>(

Actually, it's acts of idiocy like that made me realise all those years ago that you're not that different to us. Not as good as the Poms, though, who had rubber Spitfires attached to their hands when they played Germany in the soccer world cup.

There's also a beer brewed in the County of Kent in England called Sptfire Ale - "the bottle of Britain".

One of their advertising slogans is (true): "Downed all over Kent, just like the Luftwaffe".

Dave, I've done a little poking about and I can't find anything close to a 2/3s of new models will take E85 number.

Also, what do you think of the observation that there just isn't enough biomass to do anything like a whole economy fuel transition?

Dave, I've done a little poking about and I can't find anything close to a 2/3s of new models will take E85 number.

I've got links for info on GM and Ford and they do seem to be offering 2/3 or more of their models as E85 compatible. Looking for more info.

Also, what do you think of the observation that there just isn't enough biomass to do anything like a whole economy fuel transition?

I think it's a reasonable concern, but the key thing about biomass is that it can be regenerated. But we DO need more efficient ethanol production, from sugar rather than corn. The other vital element is to run E85 in a hybrid engine, for which my personal preference would be the Mercury Mountaineer AKA the Ford Escape. The hybrid engine offsets the lower fuel efficiency of ethanol.

But the REAL answer is biodiesel, which is much more efficient and easier to produce than ethanol and consumes less biomass. And right now the US is lagging way behind Europe as far as diesel engine quality and availability. We also need good hybrid diesel engines. And they ARE coming. Honda has a diesel/hybrid Civic coming which sounds pretty fantastic.

Dave

"The Brasilian State stimulates the use of resettled lands under agrarian reform and lands of small producers, currently responsible for 70% of the production of food, for biofuel crops, compromising food sovereignty.

As a result, we assume the commitment of:

Expanding and strengthening the struggles of social movements in Latin America and the Caribbean, through an articulation among existing workers' organizations and support groups.

Denouncing and combating any agrarian model based on monocultures and concentration of land and profit, destructive of the environment, responsible for slave labor and the overexploitation of the working force. Changing the current agrarian model implies a full realization of a profound Agrarian Reform that eliminates latinfundios.

Strengthening rural workers' organizations, salaried workers, and farmworkers to construct a new model that is closely cemented to farmworker agriculture and agroecology, with diversified production, prioritizing internal consumption. It is important to fight for a policy of subsidies for the production of food. Our principal objective is to guarantee food sovereignty, as the expansion of the production of biofuels aggravates hunger in the world. We cannot maintain our tanks full while stomachs go empty."


Sao Paulo, February 28, 2007

Comissao Pastoral da Terra (CPT) Grito dos Excluídos Movimento Sem Terra (MST) Servico Pastoral dos Migrantes (SPM) Rede Social de Justica e Direitos Humanos Via Campesina

N. Carolina 02/06/08 The first question we have to answer! it is viable environmentally and economicaly. the situation in Brzil is dramaticly diferent, not only Brazilian flit is sigficantly smaller labor is cheaper. Now we need technology for inexpensive fuel's: Etanool, Synfuel, Hidrogen and Maglev. This technologies will revolutionize how we build the next generation of power plants. I am from Brazil and travel to Bazil frequently.

No, the world's fuel supplies can't be met by ethanol, and since America uses a large proportion of that, it's not feasible. There simply isn't enough arable land on the planet to produce enough ethanol to solve the world's fuel needs.

But mixing it a bit more with petrol, and relying more and more on diesel (which IS a greener fuel when combined with strict particulate and emissions controls and turbos) and biodiesel will go some way to giving us breathing space. It would stave off the arrival of peak oil, and allow time to look at alternatives - hydrogen and electricity being the main two.

Right now, as the Europeans have known for some time, is the time most internal combustion engines should be built as diesel.

It costs less to refine, is cheaper and more frugal in terms of miles per gallon/litres per kilometre, and with the right controls, is putting out near clean air.

The other bonus, as the Europeans have also discovered, is that turbodiesel powered cars also have much high torque on tap through the mid-range, which means you are gaining in terms of performance at less cost both for the driver and the planet rather than losing.

Biodiesel, properly produced, can also be used and will do the same job without any need to reconfigure an engine.

In Australia, which has huge gas reserves, many vehicles have been switched to LPG (nearly all cabs on that continent now run on gas), which is also cheaper, so there's another alternative too. It also has huge reserves of natural gas, which can also be used to power vehicles. It's likely that countries taking these steps and doing the research will move beyond the US in terms of alternatives unless the US looks now at its petroleum use.

Ethanol is a pipe dream unless wec want to put fuel production ahead of food production. And a few yuppies buying the odd Prius isn't going to help, either, BTW. It's a nice thought on a personal level, but it needs action at all levels of government for alternatives to petroleum to be viable.

STM,

"...turbodiesel powered cars also have much high torque on tap through the mid-range, which means you are gaining in terms of performance..."

I can attest to that. I have a VW Beetle TDI. That suckers got torque. I pull onto freeways from the ramp totally in 5th gear. I quickly get to the left lane with the fastest traffic. That was the biggest surprise I was in store for when I got the car. I expected, and got the fuel economy, but am quite pleased with how that little 1.9l, 100 hp engine performs. I am totally sold on diesel as t

"...at less cost..."

I get 40 MPG without trying. Even with the premium price that you have to pay for auto-diesel, it's still economical. However Volkswagen charges about a $2K premium for the turbo diesel.

Les