Hey, Midwesterners - What's up with E85?
Last night, my father told me something I didn't already know.
This is not an infrequent occurence, but usually, it's in the realm of personal finance, family, or general life advice. Last night, he told me that an ethanol/gasoline hybrid fuel called E85 is already in widespread use across several midwestern states. Dad gets his at the Quik-n-EZ gas station down the block in Springfield.
E85 is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. A handful of domestic and Japanese cars are compatible. When there's no E85 around, you can just fill 'em up with 100% unleaded, and they're fine.
E85 is great for the environment. It burns 46% less carbon dioxide than regular gas, which is great for the anti-global warming set. Plus, since ethanol is non-toxic, water soluble and biodegradable, spills and leaks don't have a negative impact.
Ethanol is 100% made in the U.S.A, which reduces our dependency on foreign energy sources. It's a harmless bi-product of processing things like corn.
Ethanol plants are classified as "minor" emissions sources by the EPA, which means they emit less than 100 tons of pollutants per year in the production of ethanol. By comparison, oil refineries are already the largest source of air pollution in the United States, and it just came out that they're under-reporting toxic emissions by a factor of five
E85 should be cheaper than regular gas, but the companies that make it are not passing the cost savings along to the consumer.
Okay, so why don't we all up and convert to E85?
Well, aside from the fact that thegovernment oil industry government oil industry (aw fuck, what's the difference?) would never let us do that, there's the question of capacity.
The United States consumes roughly 146 billion gallons of gas each year. Domestic ethanol producers currently have the capacity to produce 3.5 billion gallons, in a year -- or 2.4% of the total needed.
So, why don't we build an infrastructure that will increase this capacity?
That's where I'm stumped.
Anyone? Anyone?
Last night, my father told me something I didn't already know.
This is not an infrequent occurence, but usually, it's in the realm of personal finance, family, or general life advice. Last night, he told me that an ethanol/gasoline hybrid fuel called E85 is already in widespread use across several midwestern states. Dad gets his at the Quik-n-EZ gas station down the block in Springfield.
E85 is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. A handful of domestic and Japanese cars are compatible. When there's no E85 around, you can just fill 'em up with 100% unleaded, and they're fine.
Okay, so why don't we all up and convert to E85?
Well, aside from the fact that the
The United States consumes roughly 146 billion gallons of gas each year. Domestic ethanol producers currently have the capacity to produce 3.5 billion gallons, in a year -- or 2.4% of the total needed.
So, why don't we build an infrastructure that will increase this capacity?
That's where I'm stumped.
Anyone? Anyone?
posted by isaacjosephson at 1:38 PM
16 Comments:
The environmental impact of increasing ethanol production has to be considered, too. How many more hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland would it require to produce that corn--and with every acre, how many pounds of pesticides and herbicides per year leaking into the air and water? You don't get high yields anymore without those--and without high yields, you're squeezing out food crops, wetlands, etc. (And space for Wal-Marts--you'd be squeezing out space for Wal-Marts, and they won't have that. But seriously.) Then again, you could always use genetically-modified plants--and many of them are now--but they (guess what!) still need herbicide and persticide and (surprise!) actually do cross-pollinate and cross-breed and all of those things they weren't supposed to do. Oops.
And don't forget we'd still be burning fossil fuels to deliver the ethanol (at least for awhile).
Also, it's not "non-toxic."
There have been articles on this very problem in Utne and Mother Jones in the past year or two. I'd start there.
There is a company that has a process for breaking down waste--ANY kind of waste--into its constituent biological components. Heat and pressure are all it takes--it's just that over the years people have had a hard time creating such a process without using up more (or almost) energy in creating the heat and pressure than they gain from whatever comes out at the end. This new process actually manages to recycle the energy that's radiated and feed it back into the system, thus creating an ebergy-efiiciency that is in the 80% range, of memory serves. The by-products at various stages of this process (as the material is broken down further and further)? Petroleum, gasoline, kerosene, etc., and then elemental carbon and minerals that can be used in industrial applications.
Tyson foods was one of the first major clients--they were going to use it to discard turkey/chicken carcasses and feathers, etc. But with the right adjustments in size, the thing could break down anything.
It was in Mother Jones about two years ago. I probably have a copy of the article in my files if you want it.
Anyway, ethanol ultimately has the potential for yet more waste and ecological damage, when you consider the scale required to increase production almost fifty-fold (if it were to supply our needs completely).
But photovoltaic cells are thinner, lighter, and denser than they used to be...
TM
Wow, I've never even heard of E85. We're in the market for a new car, and if there were a fuel-efficient car that met our needs, we'd definitely look into it. But the fact that I've never even heard of E85 kind of boggles the mind.
Interesting Tom,
The ethanol debate has been going on for years. I didn't realize that E85 existed, but I do know that in Iowa (and I think Nebraska and IL) the middle grade gas is always atleast 10-15% ethanol. This makes it ALWAYS the cheapest gas, and it burns atleast a little cleaner. As far as pesticides.....I know there are organic ones out there. The tobacco industry would actually love this. It can used to create an organic pesticide. I'm sure there are others out there as well.
Anyway, there are when I'm president, I can look into it a little more deeply.
I can't say that I know a whole lot about E85 in particular, but I believe that many would argue that ethanol is far from the most efficient or cleanest of the usable biofuels. Biodeisel is a better bet on both fronts, but of course there aren't too many diesel engine cars in the US. The only reason we've seen ethanol enter the market place with such force is because of the massive (and many would say misguided) subsidies given to the corn industry. We sure as hell grow more corn than Americans can possibly consume, despite the fact that corn by-products are used in just about every processed food known to man. So why not burn what's left over in our Hummer's and soccer mom totting pickups? Well, some people, such as the many millions living in countries that can't afford to feed their children, might find it morally reprehensible to see that much corn wasted on getting little Timmy to his extracurricular pilates class in an Escalade.
Also, equipping a light truck with a flex fuel engine allows the maker to bypass fuel efficiency standards, despite the fact that most owners probably won't be putting E85 in it.
That being said, for the time being I think we need to implement ANY and all alternative technologies that are currently market ready, while the changes that need to made are worked out. Ultimately it will be advances made in vehicle chassis design and the implementation of hydrogen fuel cells that will solve the energy problems in the transportation sector. So why not divert some of that excess corn $ into R&D projects for the technologies that hold the long term solutions?
Oh, and by the way, I think I read at some point that raising CAFE standards by a measly 2 mpg would save more oil than all of the flex fuel and hybrid cars on the road today.
I definitely agree that we need to take advantage of the current demand for alternatives. The question, of course, is which one to focus the public's narrow attention on. Most people are only paying attention becuase oil is suddenly very, very expensive. We all know it's not from a sudden upsurge in altruism. Hell, if it were that, they'd have done more than put a "support the troops" magnet on the back of their SUV's and actually SENT their SUV's to Iraq so that our troops would have something to drive around in. (The SUV owners could have traded them in for nice cars--I wouldn't expect them to go totally without. This isn't World War II, after all.)
(By the way, anyone remember those old propaganda cartoons from WWII that they were still playing on Channel 11 or WGN Channel 9 when we were growing up? There was one in particular where everyone was throwing all of their metal products out of their windows onto a truck that was collecting scrap for the war effort. All of this was happening to a very catchy, bouncy tune. Maybe we need that cartoon again.)
BIODIESEL:
Biodeisel is a great idea. The one problem with it, or one of the problems, is that (like regular Diesel), the particulates left over after burning are huge and many. Think smog, everywhere--again. And smog means worse crop yields, acid rain, etc. etc.
I'm still for solar. Cheap, easy-- and, again, thin and dense and efficient photovoltaic cells... (Solar even works better in cities now, as they can program the solar units to track the movement of the sun during the day, to maximize cell exposure.)
Oh, and there's wind power. The blades are more efficiently designed now, so they can rotate much more slowly to generate the same power, meaning that birds don't get confused and caught in them--a big concern for environmentalists who were objecting on those grounds.
Fun fact: do you know who was doing a lot of wind power research a while back? ENRON!
TM
I'm all for solar power, but there's not much direct use for it in the transportation sector. Unless you want to fly down the highway at 30 mph in what looks like a large black pancake.
However, if you use electricity generated from PV panels to perform electrolysis (splitting water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen) and then use the H in fuel cells, you are in essence powering your car with solar power, or wind if you want. The solar market has been growing 40% per year for the last 5 years, and electrolyzer technology is becoming more efficient, so this is certainly not out of the realm of possibility.
One of the best available options out there right now are natural gas powered cars. Yes, it is a fossil fuel, and yes it does emit CO2, but that's it. NGV's are the cleanest internal combustion engines on the market. CO2 and water vapor yes, but no smog causing particulate. The infrastructure for delivering gas is already in place. In fact. they're now selling prototypes of a machine that can live in your garage and can be hooked up in your homes natural gas line. You can refill you car at home. Yes there are some valid arguments against NGV's that I won't get into, but they are a strong alt for now.
I don't think we have to focus the publics narrow attention on 1 alt solution. We need to bludgeon them with as many as possible, so that at least a few make there way through to the marketplace.
Hey Isaac, there's an article on page C3 of today's Times that touches on E85.
I'm all for shedding light on all the options. But for any real change away from oil to happen, one thing has to get traction and take off. Obviously, it's better if that one thing doesn't bring along a host of its own problems. And it's even better if that thing can do other things--like power other ways of making power. That's what solar does. The flat black pancake is a design problem, to be sure. I'm sure someone will make a prettier solar car that can go faster now.
Ideally, one could just convince people not to use so much of whatever energy source they use. Whatever happened to our Puritan ethos of frugality? What happened to it was the OTHER Puritan ethos that said prosperity=God loves you. And there we have the SUV. "Look, God loves me." Nobody's going to use less when conspicuous consumption means more people know how much God loves you.
In the MIT Technology Review last year, or a season or two before, there was an interesting report on hydrogen-powered cell phone batteries that would never have to be recharged, as they would be naturally recharged by the flow of ions in the air through a thin film inside the thing. Something like that. How's that for precision in description? That's such a great magazine--forward thinking, etc. It's not all guys building robots that can withstand the work of drilling for oil on the moon.
You're absolutely right. We do need to convince people to use less. People spend a lot of time debating what technology is THE technology to replace fossil fuels, but in reality appropriate conservation measures have the potential to change things faster and more effectively than any technology out there. There are so many ways in which individuals and institutions can reduce their energy consumption without making any noticeable changes in their comfort level or day to day business operartions. I'm just beginning to learn about them, but changes as simplistic as the types of light bulbs we use, minor upgrades and repairs in HVAC systems, window and door choices, insulation, basic building construction methods, and many more. Yes, capital investment is needed in most cases, but these changes are so easy and inexpensive that their payback is much faster than any PV system. I took a PV installation seminar a while back, and the first thing the instructor told us was not to waste our time installing a PV system if we haven't already implemented other less expensive and easier energy saving techniques first.
I think direct methanol fuel cells will start being seen in laptops and cell phones within the next 5-6 years. I've never heard about them recharging themselves with the ions in the air, but that sounds very interesting. Never seen that magazine, but I'll look for it.
Andy, meet Tom. Tom, meet Andy.
1) Conservation is a GREAT way to get more bang for our energy bucks. And done right, it could open up several hugely profitable cottage industries. Problem is, no one has been able to effectively communicate the benefit (real cost savings) to the consumer.
2) You're both right on the one-vs-many alternative energy sources debate. Near term, it's not feasible with one source. But you'll never get the public to focus on more than one at a time. My question to you guys (cuz I don't know) is this: Is it possible to engineer a car in a relatively cost-effective manner that takes E85, that has a hybrid engine, and that maybe has a small solar-power input to boost performance further? Okay, maybe 2 out of those 3, but you get the idea. Can we combine alt. energy sources on the backend -for cars, for home electrical use, etc - so that the consumer just knows that it works. He/she doesn't have to worry about HOW?
Wow, wonk central!
Yeah, this is Andy's field. Tom is just a wonk. I would be a wonk if I had the time.
i don't like the implication that I am just sitting around with time to kill. You do realize that this is how your last post sounds, right?
And I'm not really being bitchy. I hate the tone problem.
Back to conservation...people could at LEAST run their car stereos from a solar cell. Or, going back to the SUV example (such an easy target for us!), the DVD players installed behind each seat.
There's still that tricky consumption culture thing, though. And it permeates every stratum and demographic. You are as you buy. You are as you SHOW you can buy. In Europe, people buy nice suits because they look better--men appreciate the differences in the cuts of their lapels. Here, it's the label. I don't mean to oversimplify, but the point is that beauty (by which I don't mean sex, of which we have plenty) and functionality take back seats (complete with private DVD screens) to flash.
What better way, again, to let your neighbors know God loves you? Not by going to church, that's for sure. I mean, he loves EVERYONE at church. Big deal.
T.
Now I'm going to go watch Martha's new show, in half an hour and REALLY waste the time on my hands.
Forgot. Nice to meet you, Andy.
Definitely check out MIT Technology Review. It's the best of the science magazines. It tilts a little more toward the technophile than a popular science mag like "Discover" does. It also assumes a reader who knows about science, which saves a lot of time. You don't have to read a paragraph about what entropy or DNA are, in every article. It's nice that way.
tm
Post a Comment
<< Home