More 15% ethanol gasoline on the way

[Koolau]

I'm guessing (too lazy to search right now), that sugar cane provides plenty of feedstock to produce ethanol on the islands.


Oh, the other part of that is, by doing the refining, they get gasoline and diesel for cars/truck, and jet fuel (essentially Kerosene), and probably other useful stuff like asphalt for roads. This is apparently (if my assumptions are correct) more efficient than shipping in each product separately.

edit/add: curiosity overcame my laziness -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethan...hanol is not presently manufactured in Hawaii.





-ERD50

Yes, virtually all the sugar cane is now gone from the Islands. I think there might still be a little on Maui, but it's on the way out. People don't like the pollution when they burn off the cane leaves. But the big issue is labor cost.

My understanding (and I could be wrong) is that sugar as a commodity is more valuable than using cane for ethanol. YMMV

 

[Taxman59]

Politicians?

 

[Out of Steam]

Just some points to think about under the E15 proposal:

1. USA will produce enough ethanol to provide for more E15 at the retail pump (replacing E10). So we will produce 50% more than we do now (roughly) and it takes lots of energy to produce ethanol from corn. Farmers will need to grow more corn if food supplies are to be adequate.

2. Ethanol cannot be transported to blending terminals via PIPELINE (it's too corrosive and has an affinity for water), so it must be trucked in over the road tank trucks (or train tank car), which typically burn lots of diesel fuel. There will be a lot more deliveries of ethanol to make the additional 5% blend. Trucks carry 90% while trains carry about 10%.

For the past 50 years, the petroleum industry has called the President and Congress to give orders, not the other way around.

For this reason, I suspect that E10 is at least cost-competitive as a source of high-octane blending stock. If it were a serious impediment to the profitability of petroleum refiners, they would have quickly crushed the ethanol fuel industry.

 

[Mark1]

If I remember correctly, oxygenated fuels were introduced back in the early 1990s as part of the Clean Air Act to combat seasonal carbon monoxide in some cities (e.g. Denver area in the winter). Once something gets going, it takes on a life of its own. The rest is history.

 

[Out of Steam]

If I remember correctly, oxygenated fuels were introduced back in the early 1990s as part of the Clean Air Act to combat seasonal carbon monoxide in some cities (e.g. Denver area in the winter). Once something gets going, it takes on a life of its own. The rest is history.

It started with Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE), but that was banned after it was found to be a potent groundwater contaminant. 10% ethanol fuels were sold in selected areas and at off-brand stations. Ethanol was the replacement for MTBE, becoming just about universal.

 

[Tetto]

Just some points to think about under the E15 proposal:

1. USA will produce enough ethanol to provide for more E15 at the retail pump (replacing E10). So we will produce 50% more than we do now (roughly) and it takes lots of energy to produce ethanol from corn. Farmers will need to grow more corn if food supplies are to be adequate.

2. Ethanol cannot be transported to blending terminals via PIPELINE (it's too corrosive and has an affinity for water), so it must be trucked in over the road tank trucks (or train tank car), which typically burn lots of diesel fuel. There will be a lot more deliveries of ethanol to make the additional 5% blend. Trucks carry 90% while trains carry about 10%.

3. Ethanol delivered to petroleum terminals for blending at the rack show up in the tank trucks (or rail car) and the ethanol is pumped into special tankage for eventual blending into delivery tank trucks over the loading rack.

4. Blended product is delivered to retail stations via tank truck.

Production and moving of ethanol is very energy intensive and since the new blended fuel (E15 vs. E10) has less energy, less MPG will be realized by consumers. Somehow, this doesn't sound like a great idea, except maybe for the sales of ethanol, if that's even a profitable business.

And, of course, we need lots of fertilizer to grow the additional corn, and we all know where that comes from.

After 35 years of my career in the oil & gas industry, I am really not surprised proposals like this keep on surfacing. We have abundant oil & gas in this country and we really don't need this ethanol use increase.

Yet we will continue to do so. If you point out the downside, technically of Ethanol, you are canceled! It’s just insanity we do these things, for political expediency.

 

[Turbo29]

If I remember correctly, oxygenated fuels were introduced back in the early 1990s as part of the Clean Air Act to combat seasonal carbon monoxide in some cities (e.g. Denver area in the winter). Once something gets going, it takes on a life of its own. The rest is history.

They reduce carbon monoxide in carbureted engines. Now that almost all vehicles are fuel injected with the ecu controlling the fuel/air mixture they are really not needed.

 

[aja8888]

It started with Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE), but that was banned after it was found to be a potent groundwater contaminant. 10% ethanol fuels were sold in selected areas and at off-brand stations. Ethanol was the replacement for MTBE, becoming just about universal.

I was at ARCO in the fuels division in the 1980 when the government selected MTBE as the oxygenate of choice for the oil companies. If they (gov or suppliers) were worried about groundwater contamination, they should have focused on Benzene, which was a known carcinogen at the time and has been in gasoline forever (one of the four main compounds).

What really happened to limit groundwater contamination was the implementation of the Underground Storage Tank upgrade program which started in California at the time. I was responsible, at that time in Ca, for ARCO's upgrading of those USTs, and the program in Ca took in 40,000 + tanks.

Both federal and state UST programs have done a lot to reduce groundwater contamination in the U.S. And those programs took nearly 20 years to fully implement.

Prior to MTBE, gasoline was enhanced with TEL (Tetra ethyl lead), which was a bad health hazard.

 

[Turbo29]

Prior to MTBE, gasoline was enhanced with TEL (Tetra ethyl lead), which was a bad health hazard.

Nah, Charles Kettering (also one of the co-founders of the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute) subscribed to the view that tetraethyl lead was a "gift of God."


The Rise and Fall of Leaded Gasoline

 

[Koolau]

If I remember correctly, oxygenated fuels were introduced back in the early 1990s as part of the Clean Air Act to combat seasonal carbon monoxide in some cities (e.g. Denver area in the winter). Once something gets going, it takes on a life of its own. The rest is history.

And farmers REALLY like it - and they vote. YMMV

 

[Koolau]

For the past 50 years, the petroleum industry has called the President and Congress to give orders, not the other way around.

For this reason, I suspect that E10 is at least cost-competitive as a source of high-octane blending stock. If it were a serious impediment to the profitability of petroleum refiners, they would have quickly crushed the ethanol fuel industry.

Well, it all goes back to the golden rule. YMMV

 

[ls99]

Well, it all goes back to the golden rule. YMMV

Yep, (s)he who has the gold makes the rules

 

[Stormy Kromer]

And farmers REALLY like it - and they vote. YMMV

I am a 4th generation farmer who bought the family farm. I live and die with agriculture.

I'm not an ethanol fan. I bust my chops to feed hungry people to produce food. Lets let the fuel industry supply the fuel we need to do it.

Ethanol definitely increases the price of corn, thus food for the American public and every other consumer in the world who eats. Corn is over $7 a bushel today, it was under $3 two years ago.

I don't keep tabs on the oil market, but I'm guessing it has doubled in the same time frame.

Here's my position on this entire topic;::::

Food for people and fuel for power. Everyone wins.

 

[Out of Steam]

What really happened to limit groundwater contamination was the implementation of the Underground Storage Tank upgrade program which started in California at the time. I was responsible, at that time in Ca, for ARCO's upgrading of those USTs, and the program in Ca took in 40,000 + tanks.

Both federal and state UST programs have done a lot to reduce groundwater contamination in the U.S. And those programs took nearly 20 years to fully implement.

That was about how long I remember it taking to dig up every fuel tank at the country's gasoline stations.

 

[ivinsfan]

And farmers REALLY like it - and they vote. YMMV

Don't lump all farmers into one group. That's taking the easy way. We're from a family that dairy farmed for over a hundred years straight. We don't give two hoots about E 15

 

[Stormy Kromer]

Don't lump all farmers into one group. That's taking the easy way. We're from a family that dairy farmed for over a hundred years straight. We don't give two hoots about E 15

Good for you. We're a 150 year plus food producer farm family. Since the civil war my dad's family has dedicated everything we can to feed America.

My Mom's family were oil men from the fields of Oklahoma and Texas. They're fathers were in the civil war too, both sides. Both of them have given this country the best of both worlds. Our country has it good, that's what they worked and fought for. We have it good, lets not let the politicians on any side tell us otherwise.

 

[ivinsfan]

Good for you. We're a 150 year plus food producer farm family. Since the civil war my dad's family has dedicated everything we can to feed America.

My Mom's family were oil men from the fields of Oklahoma and Texas. They're fathers were in the civil war too, both sides. Both of them have given this country the best of both worlds. Our country has it good, that's what they worked and fought for. We have it good, lets not let the politicians on any side tell us otherwise.

Farmers do not group think. For example if you feed out cattle or milk cows and need to buy supplemental feed, higher corn prices cost you money.


So E15 takes money from your pockets. Anyone not familiar with the industry might not realize that corn prices and milk and meat prices do not rise in tandem. I've been pretty quiet about some of the farmer bashing on this thread because I realize everyone doesn't understand how the Ag markets actually work.

 

[ncbill]

I'm really surprised at the virtual unanimous agreement on this subject. I'm surprised at the lack of odor of bacon - not even a nudge from the mods. I guess we're just all in agreement.

To (more or less summarize from memory):

1) Additional ethanol will not save money - any price improvement (minimal) will be lost because ethanol has 1/3 less heat content than petroleum gasoline.

2) Ethanol (arguably) requires more energy (cradle to grave) to produce than it delivers to the wheels of a car. Keep in mind, we no longer grow corn on farm land - we grow corn in a fertilizer cocktail with depleted soil as the substrate.

3) It's a political "stunt" which none of us here buys (and likely, not too many folks who use gasoline will buy either.)

4) There are potential issues with using this much ethanol in engines not designed for that much ethanol.

5) Food prices are on (and will likely remain on) a tear for a while. "Burning" corn in our cars is probably not going to help that. (Yes, I know, we don't eat field corn but it does feed most of the animals we enjoy eating.)

6) Shocker - most of us believe "subsides - bad"

I've never seen this kind of agreement on any subject I can recall - especially not one with (apparently I'm wrong) potential political overtones.

What am I missing?

To me the biggest negative of corn-to-ethanol plants (heavily tax-subsidized) in the USA is the enormous amount of water they use.

They're draining aquifers where that water is needed for residential use.

If the USA wants to add ethanol to gasoline it should be buying it from places like Brazil.

Converting sugar to ethanol has a far lower environmental impact versus corn to ethanol.

And as Turbo29 said there's really no need to add oxygenators for a 'complete' burn anymore since all modern vehicles use fuel-injection with O2 sensors.

 

[travelover]

.........If the USA wants to add ethanol to gasoline it should be buying it from places like Brazil............

They are already clearing the Amazon to raise crops for ethanol production. Nothing like adding fuel to the fire(s).

 

[Koolau]

Don't lump all farmers into one group. That's taking the easy way. We're from a family that dairy farmed for over a hundred years straight. We don't give two hoots about E 15

Would you say "We here at FIREforum are wealthier than most retirees"? As a group that is true. Individually, there are exceptions. Stating that farmers like ethanol, or rain, or subsidies is generally true. There are exceptions. If you say "everyone likes more money" most would agree, yet you could find folks to which that would not be true. Exceptions to everything are assumed. Must we say "most farmers like ethanol" (but not dairy farmers) each time we talk about a big subject like ethanol? Heh, heh, after a slump in milk prices, I'll bet a lot of dairy farmers do like ethanol (in small quantities, hopefully.)

 

[ivinsfan]

Would you say "We here at FIREforum are wealthier than most retirees"? As a group that is true. Individually, there are exceptions. Stating that farmers like ethanol, or rain, or subsidies is generally true. There are exceptions. If you say "everyone likes more money" most would agree, yet you could find folks to which that would not be true. Exceptions to everything are assumed. Must we say "most farmers like ethanol" (but not dairy farmers) each time we talk about a big subject like ethanol? Heh, heh, after a slump in milk prices, I'll bet a lot of dairy farmers do like ethanol (in small quantities, hopefully.)

No I wouldn't always agree as a group we are wealthier. But I would say that most of us know how money works. See I said a positive thing about a group. Now that is the way I like to coach my attitudes about people or groups. You don't know many farmers so you don't really know how many of them like E15 or subsidies that all I meant. The term farmers covers many people, doing many different things it's a pretty big umbrella. I think farmers are way less into group think then you might imagine. But your comment about rain is spot on, oh wait, unless it's time to bail hay, plant crops or run the combine.

 

[Chuckanut]

No I wouldn't always agree as a group we are wealthier. But I would say that most of us know how money works. See I said a positive thing about a group. Now that is the way I like to coach my attitudes about people or groups. You don't know many farmers so you don't really know how many of them like E15 or subsidies that all I meant. The term farmers covers many people, doing many different things it's a pretty big umbrella. I think farmers are way less into group think then you might imagine. But your comment about rain is spot on, oh wait, unless it's time to bail hay, plant crops or run the combine.

Good grief!! You mean there is a difference between a farmer who plants her acres with one kind of wheat using pesticides and chemical fertilizers, and the farmer who runs an organic farm growing fruits and veggies on land fertilized by his chickens and cows?

Pretty radical stuff! That's it, you are definitely on my list of dangerous radicals who infest this site.

 

[ivinsfan]

Good grief!! You mean there is a difference between a farmer who plants a her acres of one kind of wheat, and the farmer who runs an organic farm growing veggies on land fertilized by chickens and cows Pretty radical stuff!

It's funny but tending to animals and soil and growing things seems to be intrinsic to human nature, one reason that farmers in particular come in all shapes and persuasions.

 

[Koolau]

By the way, my granddad and all my uncles and half my cousins were farmers. That was way before ethanol (well, fuel ethanol anyway.) They lived and died by the grain, hog, cattle and sheep reports. So, had they farmed today, they would probably have loved ethanol as it would have roughly doubled the price of their corn. YMMV

 

[John Galt III]

By the way, my granddad and all my uncles and half my cousins were farmers. That was way before ethanol (well, fuel ethanol anyway.) They lived and died by the grain, hog, cattle and sheep reports. So, had they farmed today, they would probably have loved ethanol as it would have roughly doubled the price of their corn. YMMV

My cousin in Canada is married to a farmer and he, the farmer, says ethanol is just so great, so good for the environment, and good for the economy and on and on. I don't argue with him about it, but from what I have read, ethanol is just a huge boondoggle that wastes more energy than it saves.