Donna McLallen said: "It is also ridiculous to argue that ethanol is not a renewable fuel. Ethanol is made from plants, and plant crops can be grown year after year. Any argument to the contrary is a real stretch."

Ms McLallen,

It is not ridiculous -- ethanol from corn is not "renewable." While I agree that crops can be grown year after year, they cannot be grown without the continuous application of fertilizers and ag chemicals made from unrenewable resources.

To paraphrase you, it is a "real stretch" to call somethng renewable that couldn't exist without the consumption of unrenewable resources.

Modern industrial farming is nothing more than a means of turning fossil fuels into a crop through mechanized planting and harvesting; and the use of fossil fuel-based fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides which consume huge amounts of energy.

At it's most basic, corn ethanol is little more than recycled natural gas.

As I asked before, and which you declined to answer, if GM is interested in efficiency, why aren't you selling cars that run on natural gas?

It would make far more sense to use natural gas directly as a motor fuel (as many in Europe do), rather than to use NG to first make fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides; then to use those chemicals to grow corn; and then to use coal or even more natural gas to turn the corn into ethanol. (Of course I realize there is no CAFE loophole encouraging you to make natural gas-powered cars as there is for flex-fuel cars.)

Think about this, and please give me a reaction:

If we had to make ethanol from corn, and could use only ethanol to grow more corn, would there even be an ethanol industry?

Regards,

Gary Dikkers

I for one think anything that is non-fossil made into fuel is a grand idea in terms of what it can mean for current global politics and security in the future.

On the other hand, I hope GM is closely studying the realistic possibility of switch grass over corn based ethanol. Reason being is that while I'm not one to be terribly concerned over food prices in relation to ethanol production, it is concerning that just about every single thing that we eat, drink, or otherwise consume has corn products in it-primarily corn syrup, which is in everything from the usuals like candy and soda to not so obvious ones like ketchup. Look through your fridge. Without corn syrup, 65% of the stuff you eat wouldn't exist.On the other hand, corn syrup isn't the best thing for people's health, so perhaps a reduction of it in the food supply would do us all a bit of good.

Anyhow, your comments about studying cellulosic ethanol in general, as in other plant-based ethanol is indicative of your interest in other forms of ethanol production, which is very promising. Keep up the good work.

Donna McLallen said: "GM is promoting E85, not E10. So, an argument that E10 use increases fossil fuel consumption is not valid. Nice diversion tactic, though. E85 is a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. We all agree that E85, as currently formulated, is about 20 percent less efficient as a fuel than gasoline, but even so, simple math concludes that exclusive use of E85 does conserve fossil fuel use."

Ms McLallen,

Using ethanol doesn't become more efficient just because it's blended as E85 instead of E10. Even with flex-fuel vehicles, burning E85 consumes more fossil fuels than burning gasoline.

Using the EPA figures for a flex-fuel 2007 4WD Chevy Tahoe I found the following:

A thought experiment

Imagine you were to take a hypothetical trip of 210 miles in that flex-fuel Tahoe:

How much energy was consumed making 11.9 gallons of ethanol?

The EROEI of making corn ethanol

The generally accepted value for the energy return on energy invested (EROEI) of making ethanol is now about 1.2 to 1. (That means a farmer and ethanol plant get back 1.2 units of energy in the form of ethanol for an investment of 1 unit of energy in the form of fossil fuels such as natural gas, coal, and diesel fuel.)

To make the 11.9 gallons of ethanol in those 14 gallons of E85, someone had to invest energy equal to 9.9 gallons of fossil fuels. (9.9 x 1.2 = 11.9).

If a flex-fuel GM Tahoe burned 14 gallons of E85 on that hypothetical trip, it would have actually burned 2.1 gallons of gasoline plus the energy of 9.9 gallons of fossil fuels to make that 11.9 gallons of ethanol.

Summary

On that hypothetical trip of 210 miles, one of your flex-fuel Tahoes would have burned 14 gallons of E85, and would have used energy equal to 12.0 gallons of fossil fuel. (2.1 gallons of gasoline, plus the energy of the 9.9 equivalent gallons of fossil fuels used to make the ethanol.)

Compare that to the 10 gallons of fossil fuel the same Tahoe would have burned using gasoline for the same trip of 210 miles.

I'm not sure what "simple math" you speak of, but where I learned math, 10 is always less than 12.

Unfortunately, increasing the blend of ethanol in motor fuel to 85% does nothing to compensate for the inherent thermodynamic inefficiency of ethanol.

Inefficiency scaled up only results in more inefficiency.

Best regards,

Gary Dikkers

First off, i want to congratulate GM on their commitment to ethanol. It is not an end-all fuel, but it is a step towards the goal of reducing both GHG emissions, and our dependance on crude oil.

I want to ask a question, but bear in mind, I'm Pro-ethanol:

I heard a report on the National news that a few ethanol plants are being shut-down due to small demand. The reporter concluded by saying that this was the effect of an industry that is growing too fast. Over-meeting demand by too much.

According to your article, the senario is just the opposite....There is not enough ethanol to meet the needs of our vehicles....

What is the truth, why are two credible sources saying directly opposing things?

Thanks,
Joe

Who is Gary Dikkers and what does he have to gain so vehemently opposing E85? Usually in cases like this of someone so opposed to an idea, that someone has something to gain if that idea is shot down.

Find out if he has this something to gain and you will have your answer. Follow the money!

Gary Dikkers calculation has one gigantic flaw. He calculated how much fossil fuel it takes to make E85 but DOES NOT make the same calculation on regular fuel. How much fuel is consumed making 87 Octane gasoline? I have not heard of a well that pumps (without fuel using machinery) perfect 87 octane fuel.

BTW, does EROEI contain solar energy in it's equation?

Donna McLallen said: "I do wonder what motivates those seemingly independent of the fuel industry to fervently oppose ethanol..."

Ms McLallen,

The explanation is simple -- someone has to speak truth to power.

Big Corn, Big Ethanol, Corn Belt politicians (and now apparently GM) continue to put sand in our coffee, tell us it is sugar, and far too many smack their lips and say "Please, give me some more." without understanding (or even questioning) what is going on.

There is an old saying, "It is difficult to get people to understand something when their salaries depend on their not understanding it."

Since you and Ms Stanek make your salaries pushing GM's E85 vehicles, you both have too much of a stake in E85 to be objective about ethanol.

On the other hand, I have neither a stake in ethanol nor in oil, and can therefore call it as I see it.

Best regards,

Gary Dikkers

Gregory M-M said: "Gary Dikkers calculation has one gigantic flaw. He calculated how much fossil fuel it takes to make E85 but DOES NOT make the same calculation on regular fuel. How much fuel is consumed making 87 Octane gasoline?"

Gregory,

It's not a gigantic flaw -- it was a simple comparison of whether one would consume more fossil fuels burning gasoline or E85. Ten or twelve? You make the choice.

The point I wanted to make is that burning E85 saves no fossil fuels, in fact, it consumes more.

Gregory M-M said: "I have not heard of a well that pumps (without fuel using machinery) perfect 87 octane fuel."

You're right, it does take energy to convert petroleum into a useable motor fuel. But, it doesn't take as much energy as converting corn to ethanol.

The energy return on energy invested (EROEI) of fossil-based motor fuels is about 5 to 1. Compare that to an EROEI of about 1.2 to 1 for corn ethanol.

Gregory M-M said: "BTW, does EROEI contain solar energy in it's equation?"

No, it doesn't. That's because no one had to "invest" anything to get energy from the Sun. The investment in solar energy is free, but it does count as part of the energy returned.

The same is true of fossil-based motor fuels, except those received even more free energy from Mother Nature.

Mother Nature provided free solar energy to grow the biomass millions of years ago, and then provided even more free energy in the form of heat and high pressure over millions of years to turn that organic biomass into petroleum.

The reason petroleum-based motor fuels have such an advantage over corn-based ethanol is that Mother Nature provided a much higher proportion of free energy to grow the biomass and turn it into petroleum.

Whereas with corn-ethanol, at every step of the process (except for that free solar energy) someone has to make an energy investment to grow corn and turn it into ethanol.

Investing in all that hybrid seed corn; synthetic nitrogen fertilizers made from natural gas; diesel fuel for cultivation and harvesting; and more energy from coal or natural gas at the ethanol plant to turn the corn into fuel; takes a significant amount of both money and energy.

You and Ms McLallen may be interested in this article from the Minot, North Dakota newspaper today saying that nitrogen fertilizer (anhydrous ammonnia made from natural gas) has gotten so expensive, that even with the higher prices for corn, North Dakota farmers aren't making much money this year. Unfortunately, growing corn is expensive and energy intensive. The Sun by itself isn't enough to grow corn. (If it was, I could throw a handful of hybrid corn seed on my driveway and then harvest a corn crop five months later.)

"Wisdahl, who calls himself a skeptic when it comes to alcohol fuel, believes there will be a dramatic drop in corn acres in North Dakota in 2008 mostly because corn isn’t paying the premium other grains are getting and because young farmers can no longer afford the nitrogen needed to get a decent crop."

Expensive fertilizer kills corn profits

Cordially,

Gary Dikkers

Let the old generation pass away, addicted to oil, deficits, imports, and an old view of tomorrow's technology that just will not die. Their opinions I believe have been shaped by studies, experiences, and facts that have been shaped when the ethanol industry and technology was in its infancy.

It may take a new generation, just like with wind or solar energy to take a new look at old technologies and realize that consistent development, improvement, and investment will take these technologies to heights never imagined with technology being developed as we speak.

When GM laid out its goal to produce the Volt the technology was not even available yet. Now it is.

When Kennedy said we would land a man on the moon "Before this decade is out..." that technology was not proven yet.

When we say ethanol is a viable alternative to oil and it can lead us down the road to energy independence that too is possible even if the technologies are not developed yet.

But I for one think they are, between biofuel algae that can grow in factories without the use of farmland, to cellulosic breakthroughs that can be utilized in existing ethanol factories with what today is byproduct, to the consistent, mighty, and unstoppable breakthroughs in corn ethanol production that is happening everyday it is just a matter of time and most importantly- a belief.

We argue about ethanol like we have a choice. No we have to develop it. It is not a pipe dream it is our responsibility - err our obligation to encourage ethanol.

Ween ourselves off the mother's milk of Middle East oil and chew the corn is my mantra.

Let the fledgling new economies of the world drink that milk, save them some, as for me I will chew the corn, and heck I will take the stalk and the bark too.

The old generation is loosing its teeth I guess, but to go back and suckle on the...never mind I will end the analogy.

Personally, I don't care if using more ethanol starts to eat into the corn supply. We've had food supluses forever in this country and either the government wastes our tax dollars buying it from farmers only to see it rot in warehouses or we send to other countries - frequently to unfriendly governments or outright enemies. Funny thing is, those same countries want to use oil as a weapon against the U.S. and withhold it or drive the price up. Let's do the same with food and see how long they last with nothing to eat. Burn more ethanol, keep the money at home, and starve an ungrateful world in the process. After that it won't be long before both corn and oil are cheap again.

Donna, You have some interesting points.

I personally would like to see the nationwide/worldwide net effect, and cost analysis of switching X# of vehicles to E85 and similar blends (E100 isn't to far off is it?)

It is my opinion (based on what I have read and heard) that E85 looks good on paper but as a system wide solution isn't that great. One of the problems (that I have been told) is the way crops are grown and harvested, and the amount of Ethanol yielded from the crops. I have been told that the farm fields are fertalized with nitride based fertilizer derived from Fossil fuels (AKA Petroleum), additionally the amount of energy consumed in the production of corn crop is quite high. Given all these things on a cost basis does Ethanol production make sense? I don't have enough data to draw a conclusion. Does your team have better data that accounts for the whole system (cradle to cradle I beleive is the new buzz word for the WHOLE system).

I think cost is a big factor in E85, and if this were not the case many other alternative fuels could/would be ready to use within 10 years (nuclear-electrolosis hydrogen production comes to mind)... But cost IS a factor, so I guess I'm wondering what is the benefit of E85 on a cost per energy basis. And is it worth the investment in this technology?

On the issue of cost of corn flakes can be attributed to a few things.. 1) profit of the company that makes it and 2) the need for farmers to make money and have reasonable lives (and of course pay for acres of land).

We can also offset fossil fuel use by educating people on energy consumption, change habbits and change marketing strategies. How many people out there really understand how much power a car makes and uses compared to the average house. How many people know the average house provides 32 HP worth of energy while the average car uses 2-3 times that.

As to the 60-90 billion gallons of ethanol, over what period of time is that? days? years? etc...

Who really cares how much fossil fuel is displaced, this is an issue of cost of fuel (energy) to consumers, total availability (how much fossil fuel is there really). I hardly think the dependance on foreign oil is a big issue, its definatly a political buzz word. However, if people really were concerned about it they would take immediate and direct steps to change things. They would use less fuel, drive less, use less energy, write to their politicians, etc... as far as I can tell its an issue but not one that people are really to concerned about, or at least willing to change.

When will conusmers be able to buy a car that will run on a wider variety of fuels? Of course technically I'm well aware that there are physical limitations on current technologies (especially if they have to meet EPA standards). But my point is when will we have cars that will run on any mixture of the following fuels: Gasoline, Ethanol, Diesel/biodiesl, etc.. or even ones that can run on liquid or gaseous fuels: LPG, Natural gas, etc...

I hope GM is working toward at least a car that can be run on any mixture of Gassoline and Ethanold from E100 to E0.

What about supplimenting vehicles with water injection? This would increase fuel economy by a few points especially in forced induction vehicles.

I'm a big supporter of alternative fuels and of ethanol, but being in the technical field I can see through the marketing hype and politics and ask what the numbers say? Is it cheaper? Is it really beneficial etc...

I notice in your comments you tell us that E10 is less efficient. I wasn't aware of this, I was aware of a small penalty and that E10 is being used as an octave supplement. In the future I hope GM can site more technical reasons for things. Marketing doesn't go very far with me and other technically versed people.

I think the reason people oppose ethanol so much is because there are a group of people out there claiming its the miracle fuel we all have been looking for. This is not the case, Ethanol is a good fuel alternative, but it certainly shouldn't be advertised as the solution. It is but a small step in the solution. To those who think E85 is the solution, I ask why its called E85, anyone in the know should tell you that's because it is composed of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. I must once again then ask why the gasoline? The technical answers I have been getting are something to the effect of "Ethanol can take on additional molecules, however it likes water, but water in the fuel system isn't good, but it can also take gasoline on, so gasoline prevents the ethanol from readily absorbing water" Or "Ethanol by itself has a higher heat of vaporization then gasoline, thus making it hard to start in colder climates, so gasoline is needed to aid in cold start vaporization" Again its not that I am against ethanol, but I am FOR educating people about the real cost and problems of ethanol and letting them decide. We can always make things better but it takes time. When GM has a vehicle that runs on any mix of ethanol or gasoline (100-0 to 0-100 mix) then ethanol is a good alternative because I can truly run either. At that point we need to see what our R&D scientists at universities can do in terms of break throughs to make the whole process more efficient. If we were able to fertilize the fields in an environmentally friendly method that doesn't use petroleum derived fertilizers (if my memory serves me corn uses nitrogen in soil while other plants called legumes affix it). I think lack of education about these things is an ethical mistake for corporations such as GM.

It is my opinon that E85 and other alternative fuels need to be sold by the BTU or KWatt rather then by the gallon.... fuel energy density is a huge problem for marketing of the fuel. Most people don't realize the average energy in one gallon of Ethanol is less then that of gasoline, given the power required for a given application (say a car moving at 60 MPH) the volume (and mass) consumption of fuel is totally dependant on the fuel energy density. So a consumer might see 20 MPG on E85 or ethanol while they might see 23-24 MPG on gasoline (in the case of a SUV). What is important to the consumer is price per energy... but things aren't sold that way (and they should be). If you want to sell E85 you need to address this problem. Let people by fuels based on energy price rather then volume price.

Tell me please... how much total energy (& cost) is expended to produce one gallon of E-85??? What is the cost of the resultant subsidy to the taxpayers??? When will this "house-of-cards" collapse under this wacko-environmental and government generated boon-doggle??

Robert

Again i'm confused by Gary Dikkers assertions mainly because he switches between energy and fossil fuel in statements like "energy equal to 9.9 gallons of fossil fuels."

The simple question is does it take 9.9 gallons of fossil fuel to make 11.9 gallons of E85?

If we followed your line of reasoning then it's not 10 vs. 12 but 2 vs. 10.

"To make the 11.9 gallons of ethanol in those 14 gallons of E85, someone had to invest energy equal to 9.9 gallons of fossil fuels. (9.9 x 1.2 = 11.9)." AND they would have to invest .42 gallons of fossil fule to make 2.1 gallons of gas for a total of (9.9 +.42) = 10.3. If I used your 5 to 1 ratio for gasoline. In order to make 10 gallons of gasoline, someone would have to invest 2 gallons of fossil fuel (2 x 5 = 10).

So the summary would read "On that hypothetical trip of 210 miles, one of your flex-fuel Tahoes would have burned 14 gallons of E85, and would have used energy equal to 10.3 gallons of fossil fuel. (.42 gallons of gasoline, plus the energy of the 9.9 equivalent gallons of fossil fuels used to make the ethanol.)" and if you used just gasoline than you would have burned 10 gallons of gasoline and would have used energy equal to 2 gallons of fossil fuel.

I must be an idiot not to have a Tahoe goes 210 miles on 2 gallons of fossil fuel.

Yes 10 is less than 12 and 2 is less than 2.

Nate said: "It is my opinon that E85 and other alternative fuels need to be sold by the BTU or KWatt rather then by the gallon.... fuel energy density is a huge problem for marketing of the fuel."

Excellent point Nate, they should sell motor fuels according to their energy content and not by volume.

Of course the E85 industry doesn't want to do that. They use the confusion to deliberately make E85 look like a good deal, since on a volume basis, E85 often appears to cost less than gasoline.

The AAA has adjusted for that at their website: AAA Fuel Gauge where they do report the energy equivalent price of E85 based on its BTU content.

I just checked, and based on BTU content the national average today for E85 is $3.275, while the national average for unleaded regular is $3.043.

There is also a rule-of-thumb you can use to determine whether E85 is a good buy. It takes about four gallons of E85 to deliver the same energy as three gallons of gasoline. So, if four gallons of E85 costs equal to or less than three gallons of gasoline, buy the E85; otherwise you're better off with gasoline.

Regards,

Gary Dikkers

Gary,

While I agree with all your statements above, assuming the 1.2 return ratio is right your math makes sense to me.

What I dont' agree with is the thermodynamic efficiency of ethanol... it is not less efficient, it merely has a lower energy content (specific energy). The efficiency of the otto cycle is relatively independant of the fuel. It is however dependant on the setup. It could be argued that ethanol can make the engine more efficient but I suspect that EPA regulations would preclude the use of higher compression and more iginition timing that E85 gives (last I checked E85 has an equivalent octane rating of 100+, I have heard as high as 110). This being the case a modern engine should be able to run up to 12:1 maybe more compression ratio. This does not change however the air to fuel ratio being lower (and hence more fuel is required).

So I think a better statement is the fuel efficiency of E85 is lesser then gasoline (right now) due to thermodynamic and EPA considerations.

Nate said: "What I dont' agree with is the thermodynamic efficiency of ethanol... it is not less efficient, it merely has a lower energy content (specific energy)."

Nate,

Sorry if I was confusing. I was talking about the thermodynamics of making corn ethanol, not about how it burns in an engine.

A high-compression engine designed specifically to burn ethanol could get good mileage and have a high power output. However, that engine would be good for only burning ethanol or methanol and wouldn't be able to use gasoline which would make it useless for personal transportation with our current motor fuel distribution infrastructure.

I have absolutely no problem with ethanol as a motor fuel. My problem is with the inefficiencies and poor thermodynamics of making ethanol from corn and the political hijinks that have been behind the corn ethanol boom.

Best,

Gary Dikkers

Gary, I agree with you 100%. Ethanol is a great fuel if it can be produced efficiently and easily with minimal system wide impact... but I need to see that before I'll fully agree with it. I still think the best long term solution is to put up several Nuke plants and make hydrogen and convert that to ethane or methane (CH4) from the hydrogen since we have gotten pretty good at storing it compared to hydrogen. But in order to do this it will take a miracle or an act of congress and getting congress to agree on anything is nearly impossible. Of course I'm not saying this course of action is the most efficient or most cost effective but it is probably the best overall that solves the renewable problem and CO2 problem and buys us some time until we can do even better. After that maybe they'll get Fusion working (hang on while I drink some more coolaid). If they actually get fusion working we'll be able to sovle a lot of energy problems in this country.. but only time will tell.

Ethanol from agricultural waste and garbage.
The University of Maryland has recently found a baterial method that can process switch grass etc. better than current methods. They can even reduce old newspaper to ethanol. Would like to see some corporate interest in helping with development of this new method and encouraging processors to convert to it. Janet