Changing Locomotion in Midstream: California’s Ethanol Mandate (Part 1)
Editor’s note: On July 10th, I asked if you’d be interested in “crowdfunding” a feature article on meeting ethanol mandates in California. You were: within two days, enough money was donated so that Spot.us, a new venture dedicated to crowdfunded reporting, was able to commission Wired.com staff writer Alexis Madrigal to move forward with his article.
We’re proud to be the first media source to publish Alexis’ article. It will run as a five-part series: three parts published here on Gas 2.0, and the other two on Ecolocalizer.
I. How to Take Some Oil Out of An Energy System — Fast
“Don’t change horses in midstream.”
–aphorism based on 1864 Abraham Lincoln speech
What happens if, all of a sudden, you need to change the entire energy infrastructure on which California’s transportation system runs?
Most Californians probably haven’t noticed, but that’s exactly what a combination of Midwestern farmers, Big Oil companies, railroad operators, and fuel terminal owners have done over the last decade.
In switching out MTBE, a former component of California gasoline, in favor of ethanol, a behind-the-scenes change of huge proportions took place. The state and its industrial infrastructure companies managed to start putting a billion gallons of ethanol into our gas tanks a year, without anyone really noticing.
“Gasoline is just one component in what is legislated to be motor fuel. You can’t sell it without the ethanol,” says John Mahon, who runs renewable fuels for Kinder Morgan, a key player in California’s liquid fuels market. “Ethanol becomes a critical path.”
- » See also: Biofuels Breakthrough: Making Fuel From Air With Engineered Microbes
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
In 2000, California consumed about 60 million gallons of ethanol. That grew to 100 million gallons by 2002 and 600 million gallons by 2003, according to the California Energy Commission. In 2006, California consumed about 970 million gallons of ethanol. That’s a 1,500% increase in use of the biofuel in seven years.
Some in the energy debate say that this type of transformation is impossible. Other say radically changing our energy infrastructure is necessary. Many realists seem to suggest that both statements are true.
The MTBE-to-ethanol exchange is evidence that change can happen fast, but it might come at a price. It required no new behavior on the part of consumers and doesn’t appear to have added to the run-up in gas prices at the pump. On the other hand, the changes occurred out of public view in the industrial ports and railyards of the state, and now we’re stuck importing a fuel that may not actually reflect the politics of the people who use it.
The switch to ethanol has been so effective that while the Federal mandate that required ethanol use has gone by the wayside, refiners don’t have any alternative additives for making gasoline that fits the state’s bill.
Now, with a host of new state regulations sending oil, refining, and supply chain companies scrambling to reduce their carbon output, ethanol’s lessons have never been more relevant.
This alternative fuel experiment reveals how flexible our industrial infrastructure is, but also how difficult reducing our dependence on foreign oil is going to be without leaving our energy system more vulnerable than it already appears to be.
Tomorrow: The Geography of Green (at Ecolocalizer)
Image credit: Alexis Madrigal (madrigaelic) at Flickr under a Creative Commons license.
America sends 1.6 Billion a day to OPEC, I suppose a lot of people think OPEC is going to re-invest this money in America’s economy, think again. What do you suppose the Federal Reserve has to do to replace these dollars that leave the country and never come back? That’s right sharpie, print more money causing inflation, reducing every person’s spending power. Currently OPEC gets 1.6B from America every day, this equals the US’s Defense Budget, wouldn’t you rather keep American dollars in America with Ethanol? The Indy 500 would, so would the big 3 car makers that’s why they are slowly converting their fleet to Flex-Fuel giving American’s fuel choice.
I really don’t think that ethanol is the best long term solution in terms of alternative energy. Given the state of our environment these days I think it is evermore important for us, as consumers to support ‘green businesses’ that benefit the environment. For example, http://www.simplestop.net stops your postal junk mail and benefits the environment.
The truth of the matter is that Corn Ethanol is nothing more than a Farm welfare program. Since it’s energy output is so much lower than gasoline it is a complete joke and our politicians are the clowns.
Algae may be one answer. It is totally renewable, does not affect the food channel and eats co2. For information, you may want to check out
http://www.nationalalgaeassociation.com
MTBE (an oxygenator) was mandated into the gasoline infrastructure as a way to clean up the air through the reduction of emissions with better combustion of the gasoline. However, it had a nasty side effect–it polluted our groundwater in a horrific way. So, we logically had to replace MTBE with something else, and the best quick fix was renewable, produced in the USA, and a terrific oxygenator–ethanol. I’m surprized that this basic, vital piece of information was omitted from the story. It makes me suspect of the intent of the writer.
JBro
Next Generation Ethanol - Just Add Water
The main problem with ethanol is that the majority of engines on the road today are not designed for it. One exception is the Saab 9-5 Biopower engine, which IS optimized for ethanol. It outperforms gasoline, getting 20% more power, 16% greater torque, and 10% better mileage. The Lotus Exige 265E “Flexi” gets 45 more horse power on E85 than it gets on gasoline. Within the next two years, Suzuki, Ford, GM and numerous other car makers will introduce engines which exploit the advantages of ethanol, for its high octane and compatibility with water.
Our system of blending 15% gasoline into ethanol is not necessary. Ethanol can be denatured without using gasoline. That was how politicians created an incentive for oil companies to distribute ethanol, by giving them a 51 cent per gallon tax credit to blend it with gasoline. Problem is, ethanol performs better when it’s mixed with water rather than gasoline. This is called hydrous ethanol.
Nothing new. In the 1920’s, the model A Ford cars and trucks ran on 165 proof ethanol, 17.5% water and 82.5% ethanol. Recently, a Pratt Community College engine testing team lead by instructor Greg Bacon, mixed 20% water with pure ethanol, and efficiency in the combustion chamber doubled. When the ethanol explodes, the water instantly turns into additional power in the form of steam and also provides hydrogen and oxygen inside the cylinder. Next year, Ford is introducing the EcoBoost engine, which may also have advanced ethanol technology that doubles efficiency. Brazil has been using 4% hydrous ethanol for years. They laughed at us when we started mixing ethanol with gasoline.
Phil Ratte, Mechanical Engineer, BME University of Minnesota said: “From 1981 to 1989, I worked with Herb Hansen, who had been an engineer on a WW II submarine, and a former captain of a nuclear submarine. We developed two prototype cars, a Ford Pinto Station Wagon and a Mitsubishi Sedan, that ran as well on 65 proof ethanol (2/3 water and 1/3 ethanol) as they did on unleaded regular gas.” What is the one thing that the big oil companies fear the most? Water.
The State of Louisiana now has an experimental hydrous ethanol program that may also be replicated in other states. Dongfeng, a major Chinese auto maker is introducing a car this year, with a slightly modified fuel system, that runs on 65% ethanol and 35% water. They claim hydrogen is formed. Toyota also has a similar hydrous ethanol prototype that produces on board hydrogen. The BTU argument that ethanol is inferior to diesel and gasoline is not valid. Since ethanol is water soluble and high octane, with advanced engine technology, it can outperform gasoline 2 to 1 or better. Major automakers are scheduled to produce smaller, lighter, high compression, turbocharged ethanol optimized engines that are far more efficient than current gasoline and diesel engines. And the fuel will be cheaper. If you prefer an ethanol powered fuel cell, the Swift Direct Proton Fuel Cell developed by Purdue University’s Research Park in West Lafayette, Indiana is about $2,000, only 1/10 the price of a hydrogen fuel cell. Maybe that’s why Toyota is building ethanol plants in Brazil, and GM is investing in ethanol development in the U. S…They must know something we don’t know about ethanol.
wow, jeff baker’s post was really insightful! kudos to him!
@Jeff: This is just one section of a five part feature. I address that in another part of this piece, but I’m glad to know that you’re there to keep me on my toes.
Great post Jeff B. Alexis, I look forward to reading the rest of your feature. This crowdfunding is a beautiful thing!
Ethanol is terrible for the environment, for food prices, and for global starvation.
It is a sham put upon us by politicians and their lies and pseudo-science.
Please, do not support corn or soy ethanol.
It is one of the reasons the global economy is in shambles.
Green algae biofuels show much promise, however.