4 ms·

This article misses a key point: Ethanol is used to oxygenate the fuel, which reduces carbon monoxide and soot emissions. It replaced MTBE in that role. It wa

This article misses a key point: Ethanol is used to oxygenate the fuel, which reduces carbon monoxide and soot emissions. It replaced MTBE in that role. It was never intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Producing it requires more energy than it provides, and this was known long before it was introduced. It might be possible to power the production with renewable energy, but that's just extra steps for powering cars with renewables.

panny 5y ago
That's revisionist history, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSlNzgvogxk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSlNzgvogxk
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I just watched that video and it supports what the original commenter stated. The bill introduced many things, some efficiency regulations and investments in new tech were aimed at climate change. When he introduces ethanol, he specifically calls out diversification of energy supplies and reduction of imports and not carbon.
  - phil21 5y ago
    I agree. I can't speak to how this was marketed/pitched at a national level, but in my (midwestern) state it was a huge deal so even as a kid I paid attention to it. I don't remember much of a climate pitch at all. Everyone immediately pointed out that it cost more energy than it produced. The pitch to the public where I lived at the time was national security (energy independence), and of course the demand it would generate for the local corn industry. There was probably some greenwashing of it going on, but I certainly don't recall much.
    - credit_guy 5y ago
      > it cost more energy than it produced How can that be? Are you including the solar energy? Well, in that case, every process out there has a less than 100% efficiency, so the claim may be true, but also vacuous. If you don't include the solar energy, then are you saying that all the energy used to make the fertilizers, to plow the fields, then harvest them, then brew the corn and distill it, is less than the energy content of the ethanol produced? I heard this type of argument before, but I find it really difficult to believe. For example the study [1] claims you need 140 gallons of fossil fuel to plant/harvest/process one acre of corn that will produce 328 gallons of ethanol. Ethanol is less energy dense than crude oil (30 MJ/kg vs 42), but overall, 328 gallons of ethanol has about 67% more energy than 140 gallons of crude. [1] https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2001/08/ethanol-corn-faulted-energy-waster-scientist-says https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2001/08/ethanol-corn-faulte...
      - seiferteric 5y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_ethanol#Uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_ethanol#Uses Wikipedia claims its about 1.5:1, terrible compared to other sources of energy.
        credit_guy 5y ago
        Yes, but wikipedia provides zero evidence for the number. If you follow the link (7), you'll see they only talk about the EROI for oil and gas. The claim about the 1.5:1 EROI for ethanol is unsubstantiated. In any case, my back of the envelope was 1.67:1, which is not that far. Saying that 1.5:1, or even 1.67:1 is pathetic is one thing, saying that you put more energy into getting ethanol than you get out is still quite the wrong.
      - phil21 5y ago
        Fair enough. Back then I recall that generally being the argument being pushed by the opposition, and never really investigated in the years since. I am definitely surprised it's a positive number when combined with modern carbon-intensive agriculture practices. Learn something new every day! Either way the sentiment at the time was very much "rah rah america" vs. "save the planet", but that could certainly be my quite fallible memory.
- walnutclosefarm 5y ago
  Actually, I think your view is the revisionist one. I have lived my entire life in big corn country, and I can tell you that without question, ethanol production was billed as an energy play. Note that the blending standard for ethanol in gasoline requires nearly twice the ethanol required as a direct replacement for MTBE as an oxygenate. This is to guarantee a market for ethanol produced from corn.
acdha 5y ago
> It was never intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It didn't work but it was advertised as part of an effort reduce oil usage and especially to reduce dependency on OPEC following the fuel shock in the 1970s. Growing up in the 1980s, the “brighter future” vision was that someday you'd drive a synthetic-fuel vehicle which used no oil at all.
thinkcontext 5y ago
We produce way more ethanol than is necessary for fuel oxygenation. Indeed GWB sold the RFS as a way to lessen dependence on foreign oil.
- fuzzfactor 5y ago
  Actually it was Gray Davis the disgraced ex-governor of CA who got the ball rolling first. He took the money from the cornfield lobbyists back to CA to study contaimination of the water supply by MTBE from leaking underground gasoline storage tanks. MTBE is not nearly as toxic as gasoline hydrocarbons, which naturally include hydrocarbons like benzene which is a significant part of crude oil to begin with. Pure MTBE has undergone therapeutic studies also in gram amounts to no ill effect, but it does have a characteristic sweet sharp ether odor which is so much easier to smell in faint amounts than the hydrocarbons. As such MTBE had actually been detected by residents in some CA water wells where gasoline had possibly been leaking for years and nobody knew until after the Clean Air Act of 1990 required oxygenated gasoline, after which MTBE became the oil companies' choice. MTBE had been established as an octane booster in the early 1980's but not many oil companies had a chemical unit to make it. They consumed all they made, usually in their premium gasoline. It really did bring back a certain driving pleasure that you only get as your octane approaches 100. Being an oxygenate though you did get fewer miles-per-gallon but not nearly as bad as ethanol. Either way these were cleaner-burning additives to conventional gasoline. Anyway in 1987 CA company Atlantic Richfield (now part of BP) went commercial with their advanced engineering process, built a big unit and started making more MTBE than they needed themselves. Others followed suit, some startups. Lots of MTBE was made from refinery gases like butylene, combined with purchased methanol and there were constant shipments of MTBE as a commodity of its own. The methanol was made from natural gas as raw material so ultimately the source of all gasoline was still oil & gas wells. Ethanol didn't have much of a seat at the table, or shall we say a position at the feeding trough. Ethanol was always an alternative EPA oxygenate when the 1990 regulations started requiring oxygenates, however it was not as cost-effective, often requiring subsidies but their lobbyists were fierce out of necessity. API could be considered asleep at the wheel by comparison, they've always been raking in the bucks, well they have subsidies they don't even need so there is that. MTBE plants just cranked it up for the occasion. Eventually gasoline leaking into an aquifer becomes easier to detect than ever. A comprehensive examination was made of the CA water supply by leading experts and MTBE was found in a number of water wells, but amounting to only a very small fraction of a percent of the water supply and then only an extreme trace amount. The final verdict from the experts was that there really was no significant threat to health from the MTBE overall in California water. This is more of an anti-pollution government than you usually see, and they really tried to find something much more damning but that was it. Davis mandated Ethanol anyway and banned MTBE in the process. A couple other states ended up following suit, and then the whole US with the nationwide RFS. Ag lobby is like no other. Davis was recalled for other reasons but that made the way for Schwarzenegger. Ethanol "helpfully" makes it so people are far less likely to complain about any gasoline leaking into their local water, so less action needs to be taken there, and it supports the corn industry which was Davis' main objective anyway. Smoke & mirrors are well-practiced government tools for obscuring financial shenanigans in plain sight, the same approach can be applied to environmental discrepancy.

panny 5y ago

That's revisionist history, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSlNzgvogxk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSlNzgvogxk

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I just watched that video and it supports what the original commenter stated. The bill introduced many things, some efficiency regulations and investments in new tech were aimed at climate change. When he introduces ethanol, he specifically calls out diversification of energy supplies and reduction of imports and not carbon.
- phil21 5y ago
  I agree. I can't speak to how this was marketed/pitched at a national level, but in my (midwestern) state it was a huge deal so even as a kid I paid attention to it. I don't remember much of a climate pitch at all. Everyone immediately pointed out that it cost more energy than it produced. The pitch to the public where I lived at the time was national security (energy independence), and of course the demand it would generate for the local corn industry. There was probably some greenwashing of it going on, but I certainly don't recall much.
  - credit_guy 5y ago
    > it cost more energy than it produced How can that be? Are you including the solar energy? Well, in that case, every process out there has a less than 100% efficiency, so the claim may be true, but also vacuous. If you don't include the solar energy, then are you saying that all the energy used to make the fertilizers, to plow the fields, then harvest them, then brew the corn and distill it, is less than the energy content of the ethanol produced? I heard this type of argument before, but I find it really difficult to believe. For example the study [1] claims you need 140 gallons of fossil fuel to plant/harvest/process one acre of corn that will produce 328 gallons of ethanol. Ethanol is less energy dense than crude oil (30 MJ/kg vs 42), but overall, 328 gallons of ethanol has about 67% more energy than 140 gallons of crude. [1] https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2001/08/ethanol-corn-faulted-energy-waster-scientist-says https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2001/08/ethanol-corn-faulte...
    - seiferteric 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_ethanol#Uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_ethanol#Uses Wikipedia claims its about 1.5:1, terrible compared to other sources of energy.
      - credit_guy 5y ago
        Yes, but wikipedia provides zero evidence for the number. If you follow the link (7), you'll see they only talk about the EROI for oil and gas. The claim about the 1.5:1 EROI for ethanol is unsubstantiated. In any case, my back of the envelope was 1.67:1, which is not that far. Saying that 1.5:1, or even 1.67:1 is pathetic is one thing, saying that you put more energy into getting ethanol than you get out is still quite the wrong.
    - phil21 5y ago
      Fair enough. Back then I recall that generally being the argument being pushed by the opposition, and never really investigated in the years since. I am definitely surprised it's a positive number when combined with modern carbon-intensive agriculture practices. Learn something new every day! Either way the sentiment at the time was very much "rah rah america" vs. "save the planet", but that could certainly be my quite fallible memory.
walnutclosefarm 5y ago
Actually, I think your view is the revisionist one. I have lived my entire life in big corn country, and I can tell you that without question, ethanol production was billed as an energy play. Note that the blending standard for ethanol in gasoline requires nearly twice the ethanol required as a direct replacement for MTBE as an oxygenate. This is to guarantee a market for ethanol produced from corn.

acdha 5y ago

> It was never intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It didn't work but it was advertised as part of an effort reduce oil usage and especially to reduce dependency on OPEC following the fuel shock in the 1970s. Growing up in the 1980s, the “brighter future” vision was that someday you'd drive a synthetic-fuel vehicle which used no oil at all.

thinkcontext 5y ago

We produce way more ethanol than is necessary for fuel oxygenation. Indeed GWB sold the RFS as a way to lessen dependence on foreign oil.

fuzzfactor 5y ago
Actually it was Gray Davis the disgraced ex-governor of CA who got the ball rolling first. He took the money from the cornfield lobbyists back to CA to study contaimination of the water supply by MTBE from leaking underground gasoline storage tanks. MTBE is not nearly as toxic as gasoline hydrocarbons, which naturally include hydrocarbons like benzene which is a significant part of crude oil to begin with. Pure MTBE has undergone therapeutic studies also in gram amounts to no ill effect, but it does have a characteristic sweet sharp ether odor which is so much easier to smell in faint amounts than the hydrocarbons. As such MTBE had actually been detected by residents in some CA water wells where gasoline had possibly been leaking for years and nobody knew until after the Clean Air Act of 1990 required oxygenated gasoline, after which MTBE became the oil companies' choice. MTBE had been established as an octane booster in the early 1980's but not many oil companies had a chemical unit to make it. They consumed all they made, usually in their premium gasoline. It really did bring back a certain driving pleasure that you only get as your octane approaches 100. Being an oxygenate though you did get fewer miles-per-gallon but not nearly as bad as ethanol. Either way these were cleaner-burning additives to conventional gasoline. Anyway in 1987 CA company Atlantic Richfield (now part of BP) went commercial with their advanced engineering process, built a big unit and started making more MTBE than they needed themselves. Others followed suit, some startups. Lots of MTBE was made from refinery gases like butylene, combined with purchased methanol and there were constant shipments of MTBE as a commodity of its own. The methanol was made from natural gas as raw material so ultimately the source of all gasoline was still oil & gas wells. Ethanol didn't have much of a seat at the table, or shall we say a position at the feeding trough. Ethanol was always an alternative EPA oxygenate when the 1990 regulations started requiring oxygenates, however it was not as cost-effective, often requiring subsidies but their lobbyists were fierce out of necessity. API could be considered asleep at the wheel by comparison, they've always been raking in the bucks, well they have subsidies they don't even need so there is that. MTBE plants just cranked it up for the occasion. Eventually gasoline leaking into an aquifer becomes easier to detect than ever. A comprehensive examination was made of the CA water supply by leading experts and MTBE was found in a number of water wells, but amounting to only a very small fraction of a percent of the water supply and then only an extreme trace amount. The final verdict from the experts was that there really was no significant threat to health from the MTBE overall in California water. This is more of an anti-pollution government than you usually see, and they really tried to find something much more damning but that was it. Davis mandated Ethanol anyway and banned MTBE in the process. A couple other states ended up following suit, and then the whole US with the nationwide RFS. Ag lobby is like no other. Davis was recalled for other reasons but that made the way for Schwarzenegger. Ethanol "helpfully" makes it so people are far less likely to complain about any gasoline leaking into their local water, so less action needs to be taken there, and it supports the corn industry which was Davis' main objective anyway. Smoke & mirrors are well-practiced government tools for obscuring financial shenanigans in plain sight, the same approach can be applied to environmental discrepancy.