I heard on NPR this morning that there is legislation in the works that would require that ethanol be available in 25% of the gas stations in the US in the next several decades. I was shocked to hear this, because it seemed painfully slow.

Iowa is the nation's leading ethanol producer, and 10% ethanol is common place here, and is the lowest cost gasoline option at most stations. E85 (85% ethanol) is becoming more readily available, is usually about 20 cents a gallon cheaper and can only be used in Flex Fuel vehicles. E85 burns cleaner and therefore is supposed to be better for the environment. Now I hear about straw based E85, which is being produced in Canada, and doesn't require fossil fuels to power the plant like corn based ethanol does.
Hydrogen powered cars are becoming more of a reality it seems and hybrids are more popular than a couple of years ago.

My disappointment is that it is expected to take DECADES for E10 to be in only 25% of US gas stations.

I realize that developing things takes time, but I don't think that the planet can really wait DECADES for cleaner fuel sources. If it is simply an issue of money, the oil companies worrying about losing too much money, why don't they pour some of their resources into alternative, cleaner fuel sources? Get in on the ground floor and they can still be plenty rich when the focus shifts off of fossil fuels. Is it just that old habits die hard?

If this thinking of keeping the stauts quo, fossil fuel based energy for familiarity and profits sake, makes sense to someone, could you please explain it to me? I just don't get it. <img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

I'm no expert, but here's my two cents and/or $2.93/gal:

E85 is cheaper than normal gasoline because ethanol is subsidized! What's more, at this point ethanol seems to be a destroyer of energy rather than an energy source. Not much different than the “water powered car”.

I don't think oil companies are simply being sentimental about oil when they don't jump on the "alternative fuel" bandwagon. They’ll apply their capital to whatever will make them money.

If ethanol was such a great solution, you wouldn't need legislation to make it happen. The oil companies would be fighting each other to be the first in line.

- Tom Scarince

It's called money. If there's seemingly no good reason for something just follow the money trail. Brazil uses sugar cane which, IIRC, is something like 7 times more efficient at producing ethanol than corn. So, why aren't we growing those crops? Switchgrass is another solution, etc. But the resistance is mainly at the corporate and government levels which has the people benefiting from the current status quo. The only thing that will spur faster development is higher demand and forced compliance for auto manufacturers. I've read reports of them actually burying cars. They come out with hybrids to "comply" with regulations regarding overall fuel efficiency, and then they don't market them or push their sales. This results in an appearant "lack of demand". So they pull the vehicles off the market saying that there is no demand.

What I find strange about the whole thing is exactly what you say... why aren't these massive energy companies buying up solar/wind/water/biofuel energy generation companies. They are basically burning themselves out of the market. I suppose their pockets are so deep they can afford to do it when it makes economic sense (let others take the plunge and get into the market when you can make a killing - this was discussed on the Mag Light LED market thread).

Going forward, we should all buy vehicles that are hybrid. If demand skyrockets for high mileage cars and trucks using E85, BioDiesel, Hydrolic compression, Batteries, hydrogen, HHO gas, and other hybrids and demand falls for non-hybrids, guess what will happen?

We should stick to our guns and just waitlist for such vehicles, lower our energy consumption, be more efficient with what we do use, and economics will kick in much faster than a "couple of decades". The real issue at hand is getting the addicted American people off of our crazy energy binge. One other note, ethanol is subsidized to the tune of 50 cents a gallon since it's not taxes the same as gas. That, to me is a good thing and it should go even farther. But I've read some reports that producing ethanol from corn is actually pretty inefficient compared to other crops. My wife's dad might just be a sugar farmer one of these days. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

There are several problems with E85 type fuels.

A. Current U.S. mass production of ethanol is based on corn.
1. Ethanol-power equivelents from corn is a negative energy process (takes more energy to make than you get).
2. There isn't enough irrigated crop land or chemical plants available in the U.S. to produce enough corn to switch everyone over to E85.
a. #2 *might* be overcome if switching ethanol production over to other sugar/startch sources can be accomplished. Breakdown of plant waste-stock cellulose to sugar would help tremendously, but that technology isn't ready yet. Design/construction/fighting enviromentalists over new chemical plants also takes time, usually ten years (oil refineries currently take 30+ years to get approval).

B. 5% or greater ethanol in gas is an electrolytic fluid (translation: is conducts electricity). When two dissimilar metals are in contact through a conductive solution galvanic corrosion occurs (translation: E85 fuel causes causes engine components to rot away). Flexible Fuel Vehicles have engine and fuel line components made of special corrosion resistant alloys to prevent this. Most cars on the road today would end up needing major repairs after a year of E85 fuel. Oil companies don't want to have to buy everyone new cars.

C. Oil company "profits"
1. The news loves to report how Big Oil has made record profits this last year. What they don't tell you is this "profit" is the number BEFORE their costs are taken from it. Their actual "in the pocket" profit is under 8 cents per gallon of gasoline (meanwhile, the government takes forty-four cents). They have a return on investment of 7.3% which is dead-average with all companies in America. They are pulling in lots of money because everyone is using boatloads of their product, but it costs them a fortune to keep the oil flowing. Their profit margin is equal to Radio Shack's and lower than Starbucks.

So, my solution? Coal!

We have TONS of coal. During WWII the Germans converted coal into gasoiline via the very expensive process. The U.S. had started working on developing cheaper ways of making coal into gas back in the 70's, but that research was put on the shelf when oil prices plummeted. Remember back in the late 90's/early 00's when gas was under a dollar? Tens of thousands of people in the oil industry lost their jobs. Well, coal-to-gas is back on the front Bunsen burner again and will remain there while gas prices are high. However, if the prices drop before a breakthrough occurs then money for research will dry up.

There is not instant replacement for oil that cost LESS than oil. Work is being done, but the technological/economic hurdles are HUGE.

-Blast

Even if it's a slight net negative for energy, it can be a massive net positive for environmental reasons. That plus lessening the demand for foreign oil is in it's favor, plus it can benefit farmers. Ethenol is one step in the right direction. Combine it with BioDiesel and our carbon and pollution footprints improve. Couple renewable generated electricity (and hydrogen) from hydro/wind/solar and maybe someday fusion... and we'll only be using oil for chemicals... and even then we could do many chems with biological stocks instead.

Higher gas prices mean that it will happen faster. Ever note how the oil industry "just barely" get to your pain threshold and sometimes a little over it with gas prices? They don't want their addicted PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. switching, but they want to extract every penny they can.

Oh, and a Model T got 25 miles to the gallon vs. an Explorer which gets 18 MPG. If the 70's regulations hadn't been relaxed, car companies would have been forced to incrementally increase fuel efficiency. 40-50MPG cars would be the norm. I have 2 non-hybrids, but when it comes time to get a new vehicle, I'm definitely going that way. I also plan on installing solar and geothermal in my next house. There are successful $200,000 homes with zero energy consumption available now (they are on the grid, but in effect they produce as much as they consume). I think the tide might be turning as more consumers become aware and the costs continue to drop.

Blast, it's interesting that you mention this. I was just reading an interesting article on the topic: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=000DFF5E-9E57-1446-9A6283414B7F0000

There is some debate about the relative efficiency with some saying it's negative and others positive - I'm pretty sure the producers say it's not net negative. One thing that is for sure is that it's not going to produce enough to cover everyone (at least not with corn). And not everywhere can grow sugar.

New processes will continue to improve cellulose-to-ethanol, but like any distilling process it stinks and nobody wants it around them. While I agree that some research implies that it takes more energy to make ethanol, it also means a better environment, more money for farmers, and less money leaving the country to prop up lovely regimes in sandy places. One reason it might not be favored by oil companies is that they have such momentum with their multi-trillion dollar infrastructure and no real incentive to change. I know I wouldn't mind making 7% on a fairly guaranteed basis... and those folks who lost there jobs when oil was cheap weren't the hi-level ones, you can bet money on that.

BTW, where did you get that info on oil profits? There's a huge difference between "income" and "profit" at least from what I remember at school. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> You either post a profit or a loss, and that statement includes cost of producing the profit. Are you saying that the media is trying to get people to believe that income=profit where it concerns the oil companies? I'm *sure* that our media wouldn't sensationalize a story just to drive an agenda or ad revenue! <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Oil Profits Article

These were for 2004. 2005 numbers were a bit worse for oil companies, but they (2005 numbers) were from the "Journal of Petroleum Engineers" so I'm assuming people would not regard that as an unbiased source.

I'm aware of the net energy argument about corn. It depnds on how deep you want to go (fertilizer takes energy!/war takes energy! type calculations):p

A lot of the problem is chicken or the egg type stuff. Why would oil companies invest in new fuel research if auto manufacturers don't make cars that can use it? Why would consumers buy flex-fuel cars if there's no place to buy the fuel? Why would farmers grow the crops if there's no one to buy them and produce alcohol? It boils down to simple economics and that is controlled by our INDIVIDUAL choices. Laws can be passed, research can be done, but at the end of the day which product will be made is determined by you and me.

As for job losses during the low years, they really were across the board. I knew chemists with 25 years experience and 6-figure incomes who were tossed out along side the minimum-wage broom-pushers. Whole levels of management were dropped including vice-presidents. Then when the mergers started to keep the companies viable presidents ghot the axe. Sure, it was a nice golden axe that sang and made cookies, but it was still an axe.

On the topic of "why don't oil companies invest in alternate energy sources (wind/solar/blue kryptonite)". Again, it's simple economics. The oil companies have only a certian amount of money available for such research. They can either a) look for ways to produce oil more cheaply or b) look at new energy sources. The companies already have legions of researchers trained in oil chemistry, formation geology, petroleum engineering, etc... Why dump them and their tremendous amount of knowledge/experience?! It'd be like Kodak suddenly trying to come up with a new soft drink. Also, think about it this: oil companies are not dumb. They've crunched the numbers and the answer they get is that solar/wind/tidal/etc power ISN'T the answer. Those things may play a part, but not a big enough part to be a threat or a profitable investment other than as a PR stunt.

The Environment:
I grew up in a small Minnesota farming community. My 20 year high school reunion was this summer. The town has grown from 2500 when I left to over 14,000 now. All the crop land has been converted into housing. <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> What is more likely to be converted farmland to grow more crops, houses or the forests that surround them? Plowing under forests does not sound like it'd be better for the environment. <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Unfortunately, I won't be able to continue this thread for a while. I'm going to be out in the field for the next week trying to stop a bugger of a corrosion problem. Wish me luck. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

-Blast, who has a great deal of respect for Massacre.

I never said Oil companies are stupid. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Ah, I wish that I had a golden axe that sang and made cookies (and trailed behind it a lovely golden parachute!). If you calculate war into the equation, we're paying a hell of a lot more for our oil (and have been for decades) than we are willing to admit. Talk about a subsidy! Think of what efficiencies alternate energy sources could do with a trillion dollars in funding! Of course, you would have to do an X-Prize style dangle the carrot thing or it would become as corrupt as the current "few billion missing here, a few billion overreported here, a few billion overrun here" crop of contractors.

I'm not a dyed in the wool crazy leftist (or a rightist for that matter). I do think that there are fuels to be used here at home without the political issues that oil brings. Coal, however is extremely dirty no matter what way you slice it.

One thing is for sure, it's down to US making the decision to buy which drives the rest of the dynamics. If there's enough demand, they'll figure out the supply line.

I'm not sure that hydro and wind really need much in the way of research, but rather investment. Solar still has plenty of research wiggle room. The others will likely benefit from incremental change at this point.

The respect is right back at you Blast. And have a good time in the field.

Diesel is the way to go right now. With diesel you get 30-40% better mileage, more low end torque than a gas engine or hybrid, you have the ability to run various fuels and mixes, it produces less green house gasses than a comparable gas vehicle, is much more reliable than hybrid technology and doesn't require expensive battery replacement or electric motors, the list just goes on and on. America should learn to love modern diesels, if just 20% of people here switched to diesel we would save millions on fuel every day.

Diesel is wonderful fuel. I'm really eyeballing the new Jeep Liberty. That thing can run on just about anything!

-Blast, and I'm off!!!