Information AboutEthanol Fuel |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT ETHANOL FUEL | |
| biofuels | |
| biotechnology products | |
| fuels | |
| ethanol fuel | |
| alternative propulsionbiofuels | |
| biotechnology products | |
| fuels | |
| ethanol fuel | |
| alternative propulsion | |
| fuels | |
|
An Internal Combustion Engine can be made to burn Ethanol fuel, either alone or in combination with other Fuel s as an oxygenate. While it is cheaper to produce industrial ethanol from non-renewable petroleum than from crops, ethanol derived from crops is a potentially Sustainable energy resource that may offer environmental and long-term economic advantages over Fossil Fuel . Sometimes called "bio-ethanol," it is readily obtained from the Sugar or Starch in crops such as Maize and Sugarcane . Current bio-ethanol production methods use a significant amount of energy compared to the energy value of the produced fuel. For this reason, it is not feasible to replace dependence on fossil fuels entirely by bio-ethanol. In 2005, United States gasoline consumption was about 150 billion gallons per year. [http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question417.htm] An acre of corn can produce approximately 200 gallons (gasoline equivalent) per year. The United States would have to place roughly 750 million acres of corn into production to fully meet this demand. For comparison, this is nearly double the total area currently used for all crops in the US (430 million acres) and about one third of the total land area of the United States (2.3 billion acres). [http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/US.htm] There are currently about 80 million acres of corn planted in the United States. For bio-ethanol to be sustainable, an even greater acreage would have to be put into production to replace our fossil fuel dependence. Assuming a required input energy of 100 (gasoline equivalent) gallons per acre, bio-ethanol production achieves only a net 100 gallons per acre, rather than the 200 gallon per acre figure used above. A sustainable bio-ethanol program for the United States would require 1.5 billion acres; more than half the land area of the entire country. Proposals to use alcohol as a fuel are generally directed to its use in transportation, chiefly as a total or partial replacement for Gasoline in Car s and other road vehicles. However, other less conventional approaches have been advanced, such as the use of alcohol in Fuel Cells , either directly or as a feedstock for Hydrogen production. When alcohol is blended with gasoline, the resulting fuel is known as gasohol. The mixtures are often named by alcohol percentage, such as E10 for 10% ethanol to 90% gasoline. A mixture of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline is known as E85 . Ethanol is also increasingly used as an Oxygenate additive for standard gasoline, as a replacement for MTBE , the latter chemical being responsible for considerable groundwater and Soil Contamination . ETHANOL SOURCES Ethanol for industrial use is often synthesized from petroleum feedstock, typically by the catalytic hydration of ethylene with Sulfuric Acid as the Catalyst . This process is cheaper than the traditional fermentation associated with Alcoholic Beverages . It can also be obtained via Ethene or Acetylene , from Calcium Carbide , Coal , oil gas, and other sources. Three countries have developed significant bioethanol fuel programs: Brazil and Colombia (from sugarcane), and the United States (from Maize ). Ethanol can be produced from a variety of other crops, such as Sugar Beet , Sorghum , Switchgrass , Barley , Hemp , Kenaf , Potato es, Cassava and Sunflower , as well as many types of Cellulose waste. This large-scale production of agricultural alcohol for fuel requires substantial amounts of cultivable land with fertile soils and water. It is less attractive for densely occupied and industrialized regions like Western Europe, or for regions where desire for increased farmland puts pressure on important natural resources like Rainforests . Smaller quantities of fuel alcohol can be made from the stalks, wastes, clippings, straw, corn cobs, and other farm waste now used for fertilizer, animal feed, or electric power plant fuels. ETHANOL PRODUCTION Ethanol may be produced via biochemical conversion technologies or distillation. While the latter is state of the art the first is still under development {Link without Title} . Ethanol can reach 96% purity by volume by Distillation . This is enough for straight-ethanol combustion. Ethanol in water is an Azeotropic Mixture which cannot be purified beyond 96% by distillation. For blending with gasoline, purities of 99.5 to 99.9% are required, depending on temperature, to avoid separation. This is done using additional industrial processes. Today, the most widely used purification method is a physical absorption process using Molecular Sieve s. Pure ethanol burns more cleanly than many other Fuel s. When fully burned, its Combustion only products are Carbon Dioxide and Water , which are also the by-products of Cellulose waste decomposition. For this reason, it is favored for environmentally conscious transport schemes and has been used to fuel Public Bus es. In the past, when farmers distilled their own ethanol, they sometimes used radiators as part of the Still . The radiators often contained Lead , which would get into the ethanol. Lead entered the air during the burning of contaminated fuel, possibly leading to neural damage. However this was a relatively minor source of lead since at the time Tetraethyl Lead was used as a mainstream gasoline additive. Today, ethanol for fuel use is produced almost exclusively from purpose-built plants, avoiding any lead presence. ETHANOL FUEL BLENDS Generally, the higher the ethanol component of a gasohol blend, the lower its suitability for standard car engines. Pure ethanol reacts with or dissolves certain jets (about 30-40% larger by area) are needed. (Methanol requires an even larger increase in area, to roughly 50% larger.) Ethanol engines also need a cold-starting system to ensure sufficient vaporization for temperatures below 15 °C (59 °F) to maximize combustion and minimize uncombusted nonvaporized ethanol. On the other hand, if 10 to 30% ethanol is mixed with gasoline, no engine modification is typically needed. Many modern cars can run on these mixtures very reliably. E10 gasohol, the most common variant, has been introduced nationwide in Denmark , and in 1989, Brazil produced 12 billion liters of fuel ethanol from sugar cane, which was used to power 9.2 million cars. It is also commonly available in the Midwest ern United States and is the only type of gasoline allowed to be sold in the state of Minnesota . Similar blends include E5 and E7. These concentrations are generally safe for recent, unmodified automobile engines, and some regions and municipalities mandate that the locally-sold fuels contain limited amounts of ethanol. One way to measure alternative fuels in the US is the " Gasoline-equivalent Gallon s" (GEG). In 2002, the U.S. used as fuel an amount of ethanol equal to 137 Petajoules (PJ), the energy of 1.13 billion US gallons (4,280,000 m³) of gasoline. This was less than 1% of the total fuel used that year. {Link without Title} The term " E85 " is used for a mixture of 15% (by volume) gasoline and 85% ethanol. This mixture has an octane rating of about 105. This is down significantly from pure ethanol but still much higher than normal gasoline. The addition of a small amount of gasoline helps a conventional engine start when using this fuel under cold conditions. E85 does not always contain exactly 85% ethanol. In winter, especially in colder climates, additional gasoline is added (to facilitate cold start). E85 has traditionally been similar in cost to gasoline, but with the large oil price rises of 2005 it has become common to see E85 sold for as much as $0.70 less per gallon than gasoline, making it highly attractive to the small but growing number of motorists with cars capable of burning it. Beginning with the model year 1999, an increasing number of vehicles in the world are manufactured with engines which can run on any gasoline from 0% ethanol up to 85% ethanol without modification. Many Light Truck s (a class containing Minivan s, SUV s and Pickup Truck s) are designed to be Dual Fuel or Flexible Fuel Vehicle s, since they can automatically detect the type of fuel and change the engine's behavior, principally air-to-fuel ratio and ignition timing to compensate for the different octane levels of the fuel in the engine cylinders. ETHANOL AND GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION In Brazil , Colombia and the United States , the use of ethanol from Sugar Cane and grain as car fuel has been heavily promoted by government programs. Some individual U.S. State s in the Corn Belt began subsidizing ethanol from corn ( Maize ) after the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973. The Energy Tax Act of 1978 authorized an excise tax exemption for Biofuel s, chiefly gasohol. The excise tax exemption alone has been estimated as worth US$ 1.4 billion per year. Another U.S. federal program guaranteed loans for the construction of ethanol plants, and in 1986 the U.S. even gave ethanol producers free corn. Colombia's ethanol program was started by a law which would exempt biomass-derived ethanol from some taxes on gasoline. In August 2005, President Bush signed a comprehensive energy bill which included a requirement to increase the production of ethanol and Biodiesel from 4 to 7.5 billion US gallons (15,000,000 to 28,000,000 m³) within the next ten years. It is expected that in the short term the majority of this increase will come from ethanol produced from corn. Directive 2003/30/EC of the s including ethanol {Link without Title} . OTHER ALCOHOLS ETHANOL AND HYDROGEN Hydrogen is being analyzed as an alternative fuel, creating a Hydrogen Economy . Because hydrogen in its gaseous state takes up a very large Volume when compared to other fuels, Logistics becomes a difficult problem. One possible solution is to use ethanol to transport the hydrogen, then liberate the hydrogen from its associated carbon in a Hydrogen Reformer and feed the hydrogen into a Fuel Cell . Alternatively, some fuel cells (DEFC Direct-ethanol Fuel Cell ) can be directly fed by ethanol or methanol. As Of 2005 , fuel cells are able to process methanol more efficiently than ethanol. In early 2004, researchers at the University Of Minnesota announced the invention of a simple ethanol Reactor that would feed ethanol through a stack of Catalyst s, and output hydrogen suitable for a fuel cell. The device uses a Rhodium - Cerium catalyst for the initial reaction, which occurs at a temperature of about 700 °C. This initial reaction mixes ethanol, water vapor, and oxygen and produces good quantities of hydrogen. Unfortunately, it also results in the formation of carbon monoxide, a substance that "chokes" most fuel cells and must be passed through another catalyst to be converted into carbon dioxide. (The odorless, colorless, and tasteless carbon monoxide is also a significant toxic hazard if it escapes through the fuel cell into the exhaust, or if the Conduits between the catalytic sections leak.) The ultimate products of the simple device are roughly 50% hydrogen gas and 30% nitrogen, with the remaining 20% mostly composed of carbon dioxide. Both the nitrogen and carbon dioxide are fairly Inert when the mixture is pumped into an appropriate fuel cell. The carbon dioxide is released back into the atmosphere, where it can be reabsorbed by plant life. No net carbon dioxide is released, though it could be argued that while it is in the atmosphere, it does act as a greenhouse gas. EEI has developed a new method for producing Butanol from biomass. This process involves the use of two separate micro-organisms in sequence to minimize production of acetone and ethanol byproducts. Interestingly, this process produces significant amounts of hydrogen as well as butanol. {Link without Title} {Link without Title} ALTERNATE SOURCES TO CORN Sugar cane grows in the extreme southern United States, but not in the cooler climates where corn is dominant. However, many regions that currently grow corn are also appropriate areas for growing other crops that can be used for energy production. These crops include corn stover, Sugar Beets , wheat straw, hybrid poplars, and dedicated herbaceous biomass feedstocks such as Switchgrass or bermudagrass. Some studies indicate that using these sugar beets would be a much more efficient method for making ethanol in the U.S. than using corn. United States Department of Energy reports have shown that at a minimum farmgate price, hybrid poplars and switchgrass would be economically advantageous over conventional crops in certain regions of the U.S. In the 1980s, Brazil seriously considered producing ethanol from Cassava , a major food crop with massive starchy roots. However yields were lower than sugarcane, and the processing of cassava was considerably more complex, as it would require cooking the root to turn the starch into fermentable sugar. The babaçu plant was also investigated as a possible source of alcohol. Brazil now makes ethanol out of sugar cane. Ethanol made out of sugar cane is almost eight times as efficient as ethanol made out of corn. {Link without Title} There is also growing interest in the use of waste Biomass as a source of fuel alcohol. New technologies such as Cellulose to ethanol production could provide much higher positive energy ratios of 2 to 3 times more energy in ethanol produced than input. Cellulose to ethanol production could also run on any cellulose and hemicellulose source from farm waste, hay/grass, basically any plant matter including wood, cardboard and paper. Theoretically farms could produce fuel without sacrificing food production, because all that is needed is the left over plant matter after harvesting. Cellulose to ethanol production is still in development and has seen limited use in industrial ethanol production. However, a bioenergy corporation in Canada is producing 1 million gallons/year of cellulosic ethanol from their Ottawa facility. Using current technologies, 1 ton of biomass (such as switchgrass) would be able to produce 80 gallons of ethanol using a conventional enzymatic fermentation process. The biggest challenges in using cellulose as a feedstock is the treatment and disposal of process waste and the conversion of C5 sugars (hemicellulose). Lignin , a part of the cell wall that provides plant structure, does not readily break down to simple sugars but has an energy equivalent of soft Coal . Extensive research has been put into solving the C5 sugar metabolic deficiency in baker's yeast by the means of Metabolic Engineering . Other organisms such as E. coli can make effective use of pentose sugars but the end product of these fermentations is organic acids rather than ethanol. Lignin would be incinerated to produce energy for the ethanol plant and surrounding areas or gasified to produce a syngas (hydrogen and carbon dioxide). Unlike grain based processes which produce a by-product known as distillers grain with minimal waste treatment needs, cellulosic processes are typically effluent and waste treatment intensive. Cellulose to ethanol production is a focus of President Bush 's administration. Increased ethanol production from cellulosic sources was one method that President George W. Bush mentioned in his 2006 State Of The Union Address to decrease America's "addiction to foreign oil." {Link without Title} Distiller grain is a protein enriched animal feed with much higher nutritional value than natural grain and is typically priced at less than half that of natural grain. It therefore tends to be a desirable product for animal feeders. Approximately one-third of grain usage in the production of ethanol in modern plants is recovered as distillers grain. [http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biomass.html {Link without Title} At this time, most of the different processes for converting biomass into ethanol and other fuels are very complicated and not particularly efficient. A few processes have seen increasing Buzz , including Thermal Depolymerization (though that process produces what is described as light Crude Oil ). It is possible to decompose cellulose into sugar in strong or weak solutions of sulphuric acid, but this process also decomposes and wastes perhaps half the potential sugar content and creates large amounts of acidic waste, so scientists are searching for more efficient and less polluting enzymatic and microbial processes for breaking down cellulose into sugar. Another approach under development is to gasify biomass by heating it in an oxygen-poor environment. This yields hydrogen, methane and carbon monoxide as well as noncombustible carbon dioxide and nitrogen compounds. Bacterial cultures have been isolated that can convert the reactive gasses into ethanol, which is then distilled out of the liquid medium. NET FUEL ENERGY BALANCE For ethanol to contribute significantly to transportation fuel needs, it would need to have a positive net stemming from gasoline releases to the environment and medical costs from Air Pollution resulting from refining and burning gasoline. and (2) the inclusion of development of ethanol plants instills a bias against that product based strictly upon the pre-existence of gasoline refining capacity. The real decision should be based upon the long term economic and social returns. The first counter-argument, however, is contested. Burning a gallon of cleaner ethanol is still pointless if it implicitly requires burning 2 gallons of dirty gasoline to create that ethanol in the first place. Much of the current academic discussion regarding ethanol currently revolves around issues of system borders. This refers to how complete of a picture is drawn for energy inputs. There is debate on whether to include items like the energy required to feed the people tending and processing the corn, to erect and repair farm fences, even the amount of energy a tractor represents. In addition, there is no consensus on what sort of value to give the rest of the corn (such as the stalk), commonly known as the 'coproduct.' Some studies leave it on the field to protect the soil from erosion and to add organic matter, while others take and burn the coproduct to power the ethanol plant, but do not address the resulting soil erosion (which would require energy in the form of fertilizer to replace). Depending on the ethanol study you read, net energy returns vary from .7-1.5 units of ethanol per unit of fossil fuel energy consumed. For comparison, that same one unit of fossil fuel invested in oil and gas extraction (in the lower 48 States) will yield 15 units of gasoline, a yield an order of magnitude better than current ethanol production technologies, ignoring the energy quality arguments above. {Link without Title} . Extraction is not the same as production. Each gallon of extracted oil is a gallon of depleted oil. To fairly compare the energy balance of gas production to ethanol production, one must also calculate the energy required to produce oil from the atmosphere and feed it back into the earth, a process that would make gasoline production fractionally efficient compared to ethanol. It is suggested that an energy balance of 200%, or two units of ethanol per unit of fossil fuel invested, is needed before ethanol mass-production will become economically feasible. Switching to a system with negative fuel energy balance could increase the consumption of non-alcohol fuels. Such a system may only be worth considering as a way of exploiting and converting non-liquid fuels through the production of ethanol for transportation use, such as Coal , Natural Gas , or Biofuel from crop residues. (Indeed, many U.S. proposals assume the use of natural gas for distillation and fertilizer production.) However, many of the expected environmental and sustainability advantages of alcohol fuels may not be realized in a system with negative fuel balance. Before conclusions are drawn on the energy fuel balance calculations it would be necessary to factor in the annual medical costs associated with air pollution from gasoline and soil remediation costs of the gasoline alternative; combined the annual costs of these penalties to gasoline are on the order of one to ten billion dollars per annum in the U.S. and potentially treble that value worldwide. Even a positive but small energy balance would be problematic: if the net fuel energy balance is 50%, then, in order to eliminate the use of non-alcohol fuels, it would be necessary to produce two units of alcohol for each unit of alcohol delivered to the consumer. In this regard, geography is the decisive factor. In tropical regions with abundant water and land resources, such as Brazil and Colombia , the viability of production of ethanol from Sugarcane is no longer in question; in fact, the burning of sugarcane residues (bagasse) generates far more energy than needed to operate the ethanol plants, and many of them are now selling electric energy to the utilities. However, while there may be a positive net energy return at the moment, recent research suggests that the sugercane plantations are not sustainable in the long run, as they are depleting the soil of nutrients and carbon matter (Reijnders 2004). The picture is different for other regions, such as most of the United States , where the climate is too cool for sugarcane. In the U.S., agricultural ethanol is generally obtained from Grain , chiefly Corn . Ethanol energy balance in the United States The total energy needed to produce ethanol from grain — including fermentation, Fertilizing , fuel for farm Tractor s, Harvesting and transporting the grain, building and operating an ethanol plant, and the Natural Gas used to distill corn sugars into alcohol — is less than the energy content of ethanol. Studies have concluded that ethanol production yields more energy than it consumes. Most agree on a ratio of 1.34:1. It is also being discovered that corn ethanol yields 26% more energy than is used to make it. {Link without Title} and see below). One study by Cornell University Ecology professor David Pimentel concluded that the use of corn ethanol for fuel would have a negative Net Energy Balance . Pimentel's study was disputed by a number of researchers, forcing him to revise his figures. Still, in August 2003 (and again in March 2005), he stated in a Cornell bulletin that production of ethanol from corn takes 29% more energy than it produces, ethanol from switch grass requires 45% more energy and ethanol from wood biomass requires 57% more energy that it produces {Link without Title} . Using old data biases the outcome in these studies. According to the USDA, farms have become more energy efficient since 1978 due in large part to replacing gasoline powered equipment with more fuel-efficient diesel engines. Total farm energy use peaked in 1978 at 2,244 trillion Btu (2.368 EJ ), but by 2000 had dropped to about 1,600 trillion Btu (1.7 EJ). In the meantime, corn production rose from an average of 110 bushels per acre (6.9 Mg/ha) in 1980 to 140 bushels per acre (8.8 Mg/ha) in 2000. Pimentel concluded that the yield was 218 US gallons per acre (204 m³/km&2) of gasoline equivalent, due to the energy in ethanol being only 66% that of gasoline. Pimentel also calculated that corn (maize) production requires about 115 US gallons per acre (108 m³/km&2) of gasoline equivalent. Thus, he calculated a net energy production of 103 US gallons per acre (96 m³/km&2), while his studies somehow all concluded a net energy loss in producing ethanol. Critics of Pimentel's study cite questionable deductions, for example; 1,000,000 Btu per acre (260 kJ/m&2) for labor, 5,656,000 Btu per acre (1474 kJ/m&2) for machinery, as well as additional deductions for steel and concrete production and construction of ethanol refineries, while not saying from where these numbers were derived. (Shapouri, Hosein, James A. Duffield, Michael Wang. The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update. USDA: Office of the Chief Economist; Office of Energy Policy and New Uses. Washington, DC. July, 2002) Although ethanol does have 66% of the energy per unit of volume of gasoline, its higher octane rating enables higher compression and therefore higher efficiency engines. The focus of the USDA report, and others, was on ethanol and the energy balance equation, but according to a report by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, when taking into account the energy needed to extract, transport and refine crude oil into gasoline, the final energy product of gasoline has an energy ratio of 0.805. That means ethanol production is 81% more energy efficient than gasoline, without factoring in the energy qualtity considerations. (Groschen {Link without Title} ) Continual refinements to ethanol production procedures (including steady gains in agricultural productivity) advance the ethanol the benefit/cost ratio, and most studies of modern systems indicate that they now have a positive net energy balance. Also, when ethanol is mixed with water vapor and converted into hydrogen, it does not need to be as pure as when it is used in a combustion engine, making the process more efficient. (see source below) Many other studies of corn ethanol production have been conducted, with greatly varied net energy estimates. Most indicate that production requires energy equivalent to 1/2, 2/3, or more of the fuel produced to run the process. A 2002 report by the United States Department Of Agriculture concluded that corn ethanol production in the U.S. has a net energy value of 1.34, meaning 34% more energy was produced than what went in. This means that 75% (1/1.34) of each unit produced is required to replace the energy used in production. The study also concluded that the energy used to produce and convert the ethanol was from abundant domestic sources, with only 17% of the energy used coming from liquid fuels, therefore, for every 1 unit of energy from liquid fuel used, such as gasoline or diesel fuel, there was a gain of 6.34 units of energy. MSU Ethanol Energy Balance Study: Michigan State University, May 2002. This comprehensive, independent study funded by MSU shows that corn ethanol production has a net energy value of 1.56: it produces 56% more energy per unit volume of ethanol than it consumes. Nevertheless, as noted earlier, these relatively small energy gains are problematic, for they imply that between 2.79 (assuming net energy value 1.56) and 3.94 (assuming net energy value 1.34) units of ethanol must be produced for each unit of ethanol that can be sold to consumers. Actual net energy values might be improved by measures such as burning corn stalks (which are not fermentable using current technology) to run some parts of the corn ethanol production process that currently consume petroleum, gas, or ethanol (similarly to the way bagasse is currently burned to produce energy to run the ethanol production facilities in Brazil). As of 2005, ethanol production from corn may require an increase in the cost of petroleum before becoming economically viable without government subsidies. Although for periods in the year 2005 ethanol traded for less than gasoline and diesel before any subsidy. ARGUMENTS AND CRITICISMS The use of alcohol as fuel leads to several beneficial effects to the Environment , greater independence from petroleum, and economic advantages. Critics dispute some of these arguments, claiming that the switch could be expensive, and object to perceived need for increased government subsidies, taxes, and regulations. Air pollution There has long been widespread acknowledgement that ethanol is a cleaner-burning fuel than gasoline. Ethanol has far fewer standard regulated pollutants such as carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons, compared with plain gasoline in equivalent tests. See, for example, the air pollution and environmental studies listed at the Renewable Fuels Association website (http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pubs.shtml). In a gasoline blend, an issue exists regarding evaporative hydrocarbon emissions. For example, the libertarian-leaning group RPPI claims that "adding ethanol to gasoline will at best have no effect on air quality and could even make it worse. Studies show ethanol could even increase emissions of nitrogen oxides and Volatile Organic Compound s (VOCs), which are major ingredients of smog." However analysis by the state of Pennsylvania [http://www.dep.state.pa.us/DEP/DEPUTATE/POLLPREV/AFIG/emissions_062596.htm and other researchers indicate that ethanol evaporative emissions "lose one-half gram per mile per vehicle less than conventional gasoline vehicles." They insist that if a significant number of ethanol-based vehicles were on the road, air quality would greatly improve. Ethanol in a blend with gasoline replaces tetra ethyl lead, Benzene and MTBE , all of which are additives intended to raise octane levels. Ethanol, with an octane rating of 110, far surpasses regular gasoline and precludes the need for additives. However, ethanol can increase the vapor pressure of gasoline causing increased gasoline evaporative emissions. Ethanol as a straight fuel is cleaner than gasoline in its own right, a fact recognized from the dawn of the automotive age. See, for instance, Kovarik's "Fuel of the Future" (http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/lead). In considering the potential for pollution reduction with ethanol, however, it is equally important to consider the potential for environmental contamination stemming from the manufacture of ethanol. In 2002, monitoring of ethanol plants revealed that they released volatile organic compounds at a much higher rate than had previously been disclosed (see http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/03/tech/main508006.shtml). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) subsequently reached settlement with Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill , two of the largest producers of ethanol, to reduce emissions. However, the fact that these plants emitted carcinogens (such as Formaldehyde ) and other pollutants at a high volume must be considered as a serious concern. Fire safety Ethanol appears to be less of a fire hazard than gasoline; while methanol, being more volatile, is somewhat more prone to fire and explosions, since ethanol and methanol dissolve in water (rather than floating on it like gasoline), their fires can be extinguished with ordinary water hoses. One of the problems with accidental combustion of pure ethanol is that it burns with a dim, blue flame, with invisible smoke. Methanol flames are dim enough to be considered invisible in daylight. Blending significant amounts of gasoline produces a highly visible flame; small quantities of dye can also produce this effect. Greenhouse gases A separate (and perhaps more important) benefit of switching to an ethanol fuel economy would be the decreased net output of the Greenhouse Gas Carbon Dioxide ( C O 2), since the amount of CO2 that would be liberated in the manufacture and consumption of ethanol would be absorbed cyclically in production of new fuel crops. In contrast, the burning of Fossil Fuels injects massive amounts of "new" CO2 into the atmosphere, without creating a corresponding sink. This advantage will be accrued only with agricultural ethanol, not with ethanol derived from petroleum — which, due to its much smaller cost, presently accounts for most of the alcohol produced for industrial consumption. This point must be taken into account when estimating the cost of the switch. However, this assumes that production processes such as distillation and fertilizer production, which require large amounts of energy, would be done without using fossil fuels. As all Fossil Fuels are derived from prehistoric internment of Carbon Dioxide this could potentially contribute to restoring the Earth's atmosphere to that of the Holocene Climatic Optimum . It is not at all clear whether the corn-based ethanol cycle releases less carbon dioxide per unit of useable energy than burning fossil fuels directly. Factors in the carbon dioxide balance include the following:
Renewable resource According to its proponents, another advantage of (agricultural) alcohol as a fuel is that it is a Renewable Energy source that will never be exhausted; whereas an economy based on fossil fuels will sooner or later collapse when the world runs out of oil. David Pimentel disputes that "ethanol production from corn" is a Renewable Energy source. However, Pimentel's studies have been widely discredited, and also fails to compare other viable sources of ethanol such as Sugar Beet s, Sugarcane , and Sweet Potatoes. It is important to note that ethanol does not need a positive net energy balance to be a viable gasoline replacement. Energy subsidies to the ethanol production process from other renewable sources, such as wind, solar, wave, etc, would be an acceptable price to pay for the production of a high energy-density liquid fuel that could be easily integrated into existing transport infrastructure. Even the worse-case estimates of ethanol’s energy balance place it ahead of hydrogen – and ethanol is far easier to work with. Dependency on foreign oil A somewhat related argument is that developed regions like the United States and Europe consume much more fossil fuels than they can extract from their territory, therefore becoming dependent upon foreign suppliers as a result. Even if the energy balance is negative, US production involves mostly domestic fuels such as natural gas and coal, so the impact on oil importation is still positive. Statism Some critics dislike the idea of an ethanol economy because they see it as leading to increased Government Subsidy for corn-growing Agribusiness , and Statism . Minnesota's banning of straight gas was unpopular with some, and the US government mandates ethanol use while placing heavy tarriffs on brazilian ethanol, ensuring that consumers must purchase more expensive and taxpayer-subsidized Midwest ethanol. The Archer Daniels Midland Corporation of Decatur, Illinois , better known as ADM, the world's largest grain processor, produces 40% of the ethanol used to make gasohol in the U.S. The company and its officers have been eloquent in their defense of ethanol and contributors to both political parties; petroleum companies have been consistent donors to both political parties as well. One U.S. government study, '' Tax Incentives for ethanol and petroleum '', examined subsidies historically given to the oil industry and to the ethanol industry and found that the amounts of those to the oil industry are far higher. However, this study applies only to historical subsidies and doesn't investigate the question of what the case would be if petroleum fuels were substantially replaced by ethanol. Cost Some economists have argued that using bioalcohol as a petroleum substitute is economically infeasible because the energy required to grow the corn and other crops used as fuel is greater than the amount ultimately produced. They argue that government programs that mandate the use of bioalcohol are simply agricultural subsidies enacted to gain votes from heavily agricultural states, especially Iowa . As an example of this, consider the following analysis for corn-based ethanol in the United States. These numbers were current as of April 26, 2006. 1. 3 gallons of gasoline (or equivalent energy) are consumed to make 4 gallons of ethanol. So, volume for volume, it takes 4 gallons to net 1 gallon. {Link without Title} However, the point is to net energy, not volume, so: 2. Gasoline heat of combustion = 5.253 Mbtu / bbl. {Link without Title} 3. Fuel grade ethanol heat of combustion =3.539 Mbtu / bbl. {Link without Title} 4. From 2. and 3., it takes 5.253 / 3.539 x 4 gallons = 5.937 gallons ethanol to save the energy in 1 gallon of gasoline. In other words, the choice at the pump is: a) Purchase 4 gallons of gasoline (3 gallons + the 1 gallon that wasn't saved), or b) Purchase 5.937 gallons of ethanol (saving the energy in 1 gallon of gasoline) 5. Rack (bulk) price of fuel grade ethanol: $2.60 (average of 10 top state producers). {Link without Title} 6. Federal ethanol subsidy: $0.51/gallon. {Link without Title} 7. Fuel tax bias against ethanol: -$0.13/gallon. (Ethanol is taxed at the same volumetric rate as gasoline even though it contains less energy by volume. This $0.13 credit assumes a favorable tax break to ethanol, which not all U.S. states allow). {Link without Title} 8. Federal corn subsidy: $0.18/gallon. {Link without Title} 9. National average gasoline price (04/25/2006): $2.91/gallon. {Link without Title} 10. The cost of saving 1 gallon of fossil fuel gasoline and replacing it with ethanol is then: a) The cost of the subsidies, less any energy tax adjustment plus, b) The cost of the ethanol at the pump, minus, c) The cost of the foregone fossil fuel Additional cost to drive an equal distance on ethanol while saving 1 gallon of gasoline: 5.937 x ($0.51 + $0.18 - $0.13) + $2.60 x 5.937 - $2.91 x 4 = $7.12 By this analysis, even the difference in retail price between the two fuels (for a given amount of energy) gives an ethanol premium of $2.60 x 5.937 - $2.91 x 4 = $3.79 Another way of stating this result is that the price of corn-derived ethanol is too high to compete with gasoline even though the net energy balance at the pump is positive (1 gallon of gasoline can still be saved). This analysis is strictly considering corn as the feedstock. As yields improve or different feedstocks are introduced, this analysis might argue economically for ethanol production. Deforestation There is evidence that rainforests are being cleared to make land available for growing crops for bioalcohol. {Link without Title} This has been aggravated by an increase in the demand for biofuels in Europe. ETHANOL FUEL IN COLOMBIA Colombia’s fuel ethanol program got a start in 2002 when the government passed a law which mandates oxygen enrichment of gasoline. This was initially done to reduce carbon monoxid hydrocarbon emissions from cars. Later regulations exempted biomass-derived ethanol from some taxes on gasoline, thus making ethanol cheaper than gasoline. This trend was reinforced when petroleum prices went up starting in 2004 and with it the interest in renewable fuels (at least for cars). In Colombia the price of both gasoline and ethanol are controlled by the government. Complementing this ethanol program is a biodiesel program to oxygenate diesel fuel and produce a renewable fuel from vegetable oil. Initially all the interest in ethanol production has come from the existing sugar industry, as it is relatively easy to add an ethanol back end to a sugar mill and the energy usage is similar to than needed to produce sugar. The government aims to gradually convert the nation’s auto fuel supplies to a mixture of 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline. Ethanol plants are being encouraged by tax breaks. There has been interest in ethanol plants from yuca (cassava) and from new sugar cane plantations, but producing inexpensive carbohydrates has not been achieved. The first fuel ethanol plant in Colombia began production in October 2005, with output of 300,000 liters a day in the Cauca department. By March 2006 five plants, all in the Cauca Valley, are operational with a combined capacity of 1,050,000 liters per day or 357 million liters per year. In the Cauca Valley of Colombia sugar is harvested year round and the new distilleries have very high availability. The total investment in these plants is $100 million. By 2007, Colombia hopes to have a capacity of 2,500,000 liters per day, which is the requirement for adding 10% ethanol to the gasoline. The ethanol fuel produced is currently used in the main cities close to the Cauca Valley, such as Bogota, Cali, and Pereira. There is not enough production for the rest of the country. Ethanol production should help to decrease Colombia’s dependency on gasoline at a time when its oil production is decreasing as well as reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. However, in the past year, many small amounts of petroleum deposits have been discovered throughout Colombia. It is estimated that Colombia is sitting on 5 billion barrels of petroleum. ETHANOL FUEL IN BRAZIL Main article: Today, Brazil is the largest producer and consumer of ethanol fuel in the world. Since the 1980s, Brazil has developed an extensive domestic ethanol fuel industry upon Sugarcane production and refining. In 2006, Brazil became energy self-sufficient thanks to its ethanol program and the recent discovery of new deep-water oil fields. Ethanol plants in Brazil maintain a positive (+34%) energy balance by burning the non-sugar waste from sugarcane. ETHANOL FUEL IN THE UNITED STATES One criticism of ethanol usage in the United States is its availability. Roughly 600 gas stations, out of a total of 200,000 carry E85 pumps. If a wide adoption strategy were to be implemented, far greater availability would have to come to fruition. Another aspect of its availability is that it is currently only available in the relatively sparsely populated midwest, where the ethanol is refined (see below). As of April 27 , 2006 in the US, there are 4485.9 million gallons per year capacity for ethanol production with capacity of 2229.5 million gallons per year under construction. {Link without Title} Ethanol fuel in the Midwest The so-called (almost 200 in Minnesota alone), which is a fuel mix of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline.[http://www.cleanairchoice.org/outdoor/E85background.asp U.S. National security It is believed by some (including former countries. Many of these countries are thought to harbor and/or fund terrorist organizations. The use of Alternative Fuels would divert money away from these nations. Ideally, instead of funding terrorism, this money would then be used to fuel the U.S. economy. In any case, the U.S. would have considerable national security resources freed, if it did not have the need to protect supplies of Mid-East oil. NOTES SEE ALSO
EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|