Ethanol Industry Wants to Join Forces With Car Makers
CNN is reporting that the ethanol industry’s top lobbying groups have sent a letter to the executives at Ford, GM and Chrysler, urging the Big Three to adopt widespread support for higher ethanol blends in gasoline and mandatory E85 flex fuel capability on all new cars.
The three ethanol groups — Growth Energy, the Renewable Fuels Association and the American Council on Renewable Energy — painted a bit of a doomsday picture for the Big Three in their letter, suggesting that the only way for the auto industry to avoid “dire consequences” is to “bring resourceful, innovative and practical solutions” to the table.
>> Interested in solar power? See if group discounts are available in your city
>> Don’t forget to: Sign up for our electric car interest list.
While it’s certainly true that the Big Three are direly in need of innovation (see my recent post on Nissan), I love how these ethanol groups spin it.
Not surprisingly, they claim that any plan to save the auto industry “should embrace and support implementation of the congressional mandate for use of ethanol” by supporting “a higher base blend of ethanol at either 15% or 20%” for all vehicles on the road and implementing a “mandatory Flex Fuel Vehicle (FFV) schedule that coincides with the Renewable Fuel Standard.”
Currently only E10 (10% ethanol/gas blend) is supported by the auto manufacturers in existing cars in the US. Additionally, flex fuel vehicles that can run on E85 have had a rather slow implementation with a noticeable lack of marketing. As a result, fueling stations around the country still have a dearth of E85 FFV-capable fuel pumps which means that no one is really taking advantage of the FFV capability.
Granted, these lobbying groups have a keen interest in pushing the ethanol agenda. Yet, while I don’t think corn ethanol is any where near the true energy and transportation solution we need, there’s no way to get to second generation ethanol (such as cellulosic ethanol — “celluline“) without initially building a first generation infrastructure.
Even so, a coalition of Detroit rust-belt and farming corn-belt lobbyists would be a scary thing to behold — a group that could have a ridiculous amount of sway if they play their cards right. Personally, I don’t think the two groups could ever make nice enough to work cohesively, but we are in extraordinary times and, rather than face extinction, both groups could become stronger through consolidation of power.
Image Credit: General Motors
Source: CNN (via Biofuels Digest)
You Might Also Like
Cellulosic Ethanol Primer: Let’s Call it “Celluline”
Last Bailout Plea: Chrysler Needs $7 Billion
Corn Ethanol Bust Provides an Opening for 2nd Gen Biofuels
Suzuki’s Cars Will Run On 100% Ethanol in US, Brazil by 2010
November 26th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Sweet now the government can prop up to failing industries. It is time to let economic Darwinism take effect.
November 26th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Where’s the oil lobby when you need them? Ethanol’s benefits aren’t worth all the trouble. We should increase domestic production and exploration of oil and continue to develop and maximize the efficiency of gas/electric hybrid vehicles.
Alternately we should immediately end the $.50/gallon subsidy for ethanol and any and all other corn related subsidy’s. Midwest farmers would then have to re-learn how to grow more than two crops.
November 27th, 2008 at 6:47 am
Since fuel mileage goes DOWN as the percentage of ethanol goes UP, I wonder why the auto companies aren’t pushing real hard for ethanol.
Cameron has it right. If a subsidy is needed then the technology is NOT ready for use.
If we would just switch to diesel engines in automobiles, then we would get a quick 30% increase in fuel mileage.
November 27th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
You know it might just be what alternative fuels need. OK corn is not the long term answer, any more than trying to run your life on payday loans is. But there does need to be more buy in from automakers to help ethanol/butanol fuels get off the ground, and to provide volume demand that will encourage infrastructure and second generation fuels. That said, the truly dreadful fuel efficiency of US vehicles, cars, trucks and semis must also be addressed. Otherwise you’re warming the house by burning the furniture, which you can do but it is very expensive.
If the US government is going to invest heavily in zombie companies (like AIG) then lets make sure that they are useful zombies with some real benefit to society…
November 27th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
I Support This Fully ! Brazil Has Done This And Has Gone From An Importer Of Energy Fuel To An Exporter Of Energy Fuel. The Legislative Body Of America Should Mandate This Just As They Do Emission Standards. With The Multitude Of Alternate Fuels Available And In The Future It Only Make Prudent Sense. That Facts Are America Only Uses 36% Of Its Available Farm Land And Only 1% Of The Worlds Farm Land Is Used For Bio-Fuel
Brazil Success :
RIO DE JANEIRO — Drivers here can fill up their cars with just about any imaginable fuel — except plain old gasoline.
A three-decade-long alternative energy campaign has outfitted Brazilian filling stations with fuel pumps that offer pure ethanol, a blend of gasoline and 20% ethanol called gasohol, or even natural gas. This year, Brazil will achieve energy independence — a goal the United States has been chasing without success since the energy crises of the 1970s.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2006-03-28-brazil-ethanol-cover_x.htm
This Needs To Happen NOW!
November 27th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
‘Looks like the Chinese are going to use ethanol more efficiently than Americans are: DonFeng, the major Chinese auto maker is introducing a conventional engine that burns a cheaper mix of 65% ethanol and 35% water, with a simple add-on. This is an ethanol-water reformer attached to the engine that makes hydrogen. That would be Hydrogen on Demand, from a safe onboard renewable liquid fuel, that does Not have to be compressed into expensive high pressure tanks.
The efficiency of ethanol goes way up, when you blend it with water, instead of gasoline. When 65% ethanol is made, you can leave most of the water in the mix, and save over half the cost to distill it. The cost per gallon would drop by over 1/3. This ethanol-water solution can easily be reformed into hydrogen.
Toyota is also developing a similar onboard ethanol-water reformer, and so is MIT and Ohio State University. This technology may be similar to the ethanol reactor invented in 2004 by Lanny Schmidt, University of Minnesota professor of chemical engineering. Schmidt says his reactor, which you can hold in the palm of your hand, can reform enough hydrogen from a mix of ethanol and water to power a car or a small house. Using very little energy, the device instantaneously strips all the hydrogen from the ethanol, and it also strips half of the hydrogen from the water, as a bonus.
A recent article by Matthew McDermott, “Hydrogen Made From Ethanol With 90% Efficiency Using Inexpensive Catalyst”, appeared in “Science & Technology”. Ohio State University researchers have developed a similar method to produce hydrogen from ethanol, using an inexpensive catalyst and only a small amount of energy.
One of these reactors can efficiently provide hydrogen to a typical internal combustion engine by reforming a 2 to 1 mix of ethanol and water. However, the highest use is to mate the ethanol-water reactor to a fuel cell, which is 2-3 times more efficient. So here’s a way to leapfrog a hydrogen infrastructure, by splitting ethanol-water into hydrogen on demand, onboard the moving vehicle.
This technology could also be applied to high-torque electric farm tractors, where crops and biofuel feedstocks are being produced. For a fraction of the cost, locally produced ethanol mixed with water would be reformed onboard tractors into hydrogen, to power fuel cells 2-3 times more efficient than current diesel engines.
Ethanol-water reactors could also be added-on to existing conventional internal combustion engines to supplement gasoline consumption, increase power and mileage, and clean up unburned residues in the combustion chamber. The hydrogen would simply be added to the intake air, and a computer chip would be reprogramed. This can also be adapted to long-haul diesel trucks.
Future generation Plug-in Hybrid electric vehicles, for extended range, may soon be equipped with ethanol-water reformers, supplying fuel cells with hydrogen on demand. You may one day pull-up to a blender pump that custom mixes pure ethanol with water: W20, W30, W40, W50, W60. Contrary to what critics say, with this technology, ethanol has the potential to replace foreign oil entirely.
November 27th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
For those of you who think ethatnol is a subsidised fuel you need to do a little research and you will find out that gas is subsidised far more than ethanol. In fact it is subsidised about 10 times as much ethanol.
Another myth is the lower mileage with ethanol. That is only true when you run ethanol in a gas engine. If you build engines to run specifically on ethanol you will get about 20% better mileage than a comparable gas engine.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:35 am
cellulosic ethanol is good . building a fuel infrastructure will cost alot.It be better to build ft plants and turn our trash into fuel. Trush is cheap and waste to fuel is good idea.
November 28th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Ethanol in South America is made from Sugar. When you make Ethanol from sugar you get 7 gallons of Ethanol for every gallon of energy used when you make Ethanol from corn you use 1.2 gallons of energy to create one gallon of ethanol. This is not about reducing our reliance on foreign oil this is about saving worthless lobbyists. Why do lobbyists where neckties? To keep the foreskin from going over their heads.
November 28th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
CNCMike has it right.
If automakers would increase the compression ratios of their engines, they would get more horsepower and miles per gallon. Of course, they would no longer run on unleaded regular. They would need either 93 Octane unleaded premium, 95 octane E10 or 105 octane E85.
November 28th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
One of the previous bloggers made a false claim when they compared corn ethanol with sugar ethanol. One acre of corn produces about 400 gallons of ethanol, plus distillers grains animal feed and corn oil. Distillers grain contains up to 19% corn oil, which can be extracted into food or fuel. One acre of sugar cane produces about 800 to 1,000 gallons of ethanol, plus bagasse fiber, sometimes burned for production power. Sugar cane is more efficient for producing ethanol. However, it does Not produce a high protein system for feeding animals, and it does Not produce oil that can be used for food or biodiesel fuel. Critics of ethanol typically omit information or use old outdated information, which distorts the truth.
The average return on American ethanol is now close to 2 to 1 and increasing constantly, as bio-refineries, feedstocks, and processes are being dramatically improved. Even more efficient corn ethanol production systems are now being built, as high as 3 to 1, such as ethanol refineries integrated with dairy farms and livestock feedlots. Some corn ethanol refineries are being equipped with cellulose capability. That will also make them energy self-sufficient. The new Levelland Hockley County Ethanol plant in Texas uses only sorghum as feedstock, and 10 ethanol refineries being built in Louisiana by Renergie use sweet sorghum as the feedstock. Others will use algae. These will be over 3 to 1 return.
November 30th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Jeff,
I just wanted to say that I always enjoy reading your posts. It’s now “in vogue” to bash corn-based ethanol even though the bashing is usually based upon outdated and/or sometimes completely wrong information. I’ve read quite a few more-recent reports on the subject and the conclusion (which is probably itself somewhat outdated) seemed to be that we get at least 50% gain in energy from corn-based ethanol.
December 1st, 2008 at 5:41 pm
A Match Made in Heaven for Algae:
Here’s something significant that I would like to add:
Green Plains’ corn ethanol plant in Shenandoah, Iowa will be equipped with ALGAE production, based on a joint venture with BioProcess Algae LLC.
This will be the first corn ethanol refinery to produce algae, from their waste products: CO2, waste heat, and nutrient rich waste water effluent. The company says the CO2 will be sequestered into the animal feed and recycled into the food chain.
In addition to the potential to produce corn oil as food or fuel, the plant will produce algae oil as a biodiesel feedstock, perhaps for local farmers. More ethanol will be produced from the algae starch, and algae protein will be marketed side-by-side with high protein distillers grains. Thus Green Plains will produce 2 types of animal feed used to produce food: one from corn and one from algae. A new efficiency rating for the plant should be over 3 to 1 return. Integrate this with an adjacent dairy farm, feed lot, or fish farm, and it could be over 5 to 1 return.
Onsite processing of algae oil into biodiesel should also be a winner. Because the glycerin waste product could also be fed to the algae, and onsite ethanol can be used to process algae oil into biodiesel. No shipping alcohol to make biodiesel, and no having to dispose of the glycerin waste product.
Since we now have over 200 corn ethanol plants, with all the same waste products that algae loves, this represents a huge resource to expand biofuel production. With algae’s prolific growth rate, we may be able to triple or better the production of biodiesel, ethanol, and animal feed. Exploiting a symbiotic relationship between ethanol and biodiesel, and another symbiotic relationship between corn ethanol and algae.
This is why we should not discredit the corn ethanol industry, because it may prove to be a match made in heaven for blockbuster Algae.
December 1st, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Actually Jeff what you just posted is why a lot of people do bash the corn ethanol world. They have the potential to be an efficient supplier of fuel, but are just now breaking away from the government tit and looking for a way to be economically viable. The Corn-Algae combo would be great if they would take that step.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:59 pm
The original BLOG did not reveal the real issue with the ethanol producers and Detroit. Most comments are off point but Mark, CNCMike and Jeff made some good points. Already in 2008 more ethanol was produced and used at a rate greater than that mandated in the RFS. This presents the ‘Blend Wall’ problem. Due to distribution infrastructure deficiencies, the midwest already has more ethanol than it can blend at 10%. Last month, to fix this problem, EPA upped the allowable blend to 10.25% without explicit auto maker approval. The EPA wants to establish new blend standards by January 20. The ethanol industry doesn’t want Detroit to object.
The problem is that there is a solution that neither the ethanol industry nor Detroit seems willing to get behind, maybe because of BIG oil power. Big oil wants to maintain control of the liquid fuel market (and collect the $.50 blending credit – it doesn’t go to the ethanol producers, but the blenders). They are willing to let a bit more go to ethanol if they can keep their $.50 bribe.
The correct blending protocol, however, is to deliver the ethanol to the retailers and blend it at the pump. There are presently 185 such retail blenders in the midwest. This has many advantages. First, because of lowered milage, E85 hasn’t been a break even fuel cost wise since the early 80’s. Anyone putting E85 in their flex-fuel vehicle is doing it because of altruism, not his pocketbook. However, most if not all flex-fuel vehicles will getter better milage than unleaded at some mid-range blend. E23 – E30 seems to be the ’sweet spot’. This is also true of any electronically fuel injected vehicle. I get over 50MPG (no hyper driving) in my Prius using E25. This is 12% better than EPA estimates and is illegal because of EPA blending protocol. Reprograming computer chips could attain a 10 – 15% increase in milage in any vehicle which is a 19-24% increase in thermal efficiency. (This is similar to Jeff’s suggestion of injecting hydrogen into the intake manifold. You run your engine lean with a combustion enhancer.)
Having E100 at the retailer allows for a distribution infrastructure with flexibility where existing vehicles can be retrofitted, new dedicated ethanol engines can be introduces like Mark suggested or new technologies like ethanol fuel cells can be introduced. This is a place where consumers deserve a choice. This blending decision will be made soon. Installing equipment compatible with E100 will be moderately costly for the retailer. This is an approach that could be an Obama ‘double dip’. Government support for these conversions would give an immediate, though small, economic boost while establishing a blending protocol that could quickly result in a 10% or better reduction in oil imports.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Detroit, Madison Avenue and Big Oil exist on disinformation. They pretened to give us what we have been lead to believe we want (SUV’s?), when in reality it’s more like “This is our product, now let’s make the public believe they want it!”
They produce pathetically inefficient “FlexFuel” vehicles for the “feel good” crowd. Due to their low compression ratio (approx. 8.5 to 1), these vehicles do not run worth a tinker’s damn on E85, thus perpetuating the myths about ethanol that their Big Oil bedmates find so helpful.
GM’s “Yellow Cap” campaign is another good example of how Detroit bamboozles consumers. If you bought one of their gas guzzlers over the past few years, they send you a cute little yellow gas cap for the GM urban assault vehicle (a.k.a. SUV) you bought, saying “By the way, did you know your vehicle can already run on E85?” This, after all the gas price hikes have taken place.
In other words, the consumer COULD have been running on E85 @ $2.65 per gallon (however inefficiently) the whole time they were having to pay nearly $4.00 per gallon for Big Oil’s product.
Hmmm….collusion, ya think? The two are joined at the hip, why would we expect anything else from these mutant siamese twins.
They remind me of the old Lily Tomlin skit about what her telephone operator character (forgot the name) said “We’re the phone company (inseart Big Oil & Detriot). We don’t care, because we don’t have to!”
Okay, that’s my rant.
CNCMike….I’ve read several of your posts, and it’s clear that you are mechanically saavy. I am developing a business plan to produce E85 powered crate engines. I would really welcome any discussion with you about the effects, pro or con, of ethanol on the engine. Is there some way to communicate off this site, via email?
December 4th, 2008 at 5:47 am
To follow up on Jeff’s corn/algae symbiosis, there is symbiosis beyond the fuel relations. Corn has next to no Omega3 lipids. Animals cannot be successfully raised on DDG feed alone and are presently supplemented with soybean for its moderate omega3 content. Selecting an algae that has an appropriate balance between oil production and omega3 content will make a more balanced feed.
Nutritionists tell us that we should have a 4 to 1 ration of omega6 to omega3 but most Americans are at a 10 to 1 up to a 40 to 1 ratio. Most nutritionists don’t even count beef and pork as having any omega3 content. Hence the view of the ‘natural food’ people that animals need to be pasture fed because it is the original photosynthesis cells of grass or algae that produce and contain omega3. The other major lipid missing would then be lysine which is necessary for rapid weight gain. It can be found in the DDG of barley based ethanol so a fairly complete diet can be produced from DDG’s if the right feed stock is used in appropriate proportions.
The total range of products from farm based ethanol needs to be considered and there are some wonderful opportunities out there. The one down side to corn is that high yields are dependent on significant nitrogen fertilization. This can result in runoff damaging streams and our waterways. But there are good ethanol feed-stock plants that can help solve that problem too. Anybody have any information on no till farming and co-cropping?
December 12th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Great stuff Jeff, what are your sources?
February 4th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
I agree with Lonni B, on the assement regarding the oil and car compannies being joined at the hip.I am delighted at not being alone in my conjecture to the fact.This goes back from the begining of both industries lock in step so to say. Otherwise we would have vehicles with greater miles per gallon potential,not halve measures.Its hard to beleive that the internal combustion engine still has the same basic architecture from its inception,ithe the exce ption of a lot of external add ons , there is very little to distinguish it from its predocessor.But for now I will not pursue that direction.
If our country is serious about reducing foreign oil dependency ethanol,shows great promise,with technology constantly improving its extrction potential. Just as improvents were made to yield greater gasoline output grom a barrel of oil.Just like any other technology its a building block system to greater yields and uses. At present it is maligned by not having the energy output as gasoline, but that is as one reader stated optimum compression ratios are utilized ethanol fuels, and surely the auto companies know that,they just omit that fact.Current engines with optimal compression ratios could run efficiently up to 50/50 fuel blend without adverse effects, and good fuel economy and low emissions, not to mention at little cost to the manufacurer.Unfortunatly since profit is always on the forefront, solutions will be hard found.
we we have great abilitie and possibilities, too bad greed and profit stands in the way.
Paul Oliveri