GhostOfCaptSpaulding
05-26-2009, 03:55 PM
[offsite:3jzvy60f]Not only is ethanol proving to be a dud as a fuel substitute but there is increasing evidence that it is destroying engines in large numbers
More than one major transportation-based industry in America besides Detroit is on the ropes. For the fourth time in our history the ethanol industry has come undone and is quickly failing nationally. Of course it's one thing when Detroit collapsed with the economy; after all, that is a truly free-market enterprise and the economy hasn't been good. But the fact that the ethanol industry is going bankrupt, when the only reason we use this additive is a massive government mandate, is outrageous at best.
Then again, the ethanol lobby and refiners have a solution to ethanol's failure in America: Hire retired General Wesley Clark as your point man and lobby the government to increase the amount of ethanol in our fuel to 15%. The problems with that proposition are real—unlike ethanol's benefits.
Where's the Logic?
First, the primary job of the Environmental Protection Agency is, dare it be said, to protect our environment. Yet using ethanol actually creates more smog than using regular gas, and the EPA's own attorneys had to admit that fact in front of the justices presiding over the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1995 (API v. EPA).
Second, truly independent studies on ethanol, such as those written by Tad Patzek of Berkeley and David Pimentel of Cornell, show that ethanol is a net energy loser. Other studies suggest there is a small net energy gain from it.
Third, all fuels laced with ethanol reduce the vehicle's fuel efficiency, and the E85 blend drops gas mileage between 30% and 40%, depending on whether you use the EPA's fuel mileage standards (fueleconomy.gov) or those of the Dept. of Energy.
Fourth, forget what biofuels have done to the price of foodstuffs worldwide over the past three years; the science seems to suggest that using ethanol increases global warming emissions over the use of straight gasoline. Just these issues should have kept ethanol from being brought back for its fourth run in American history.
Don't let anybody mislead you: The new push to get a 15% ethanol mandate out of Washington is simply to restore profitability to a failed industry. Only this time around those promoting more ethanol in our gas say there's no scientific proof that adding more ethanol will damage vehicles or small gas-powered engines. With that statement they've gone from shilling the public to outright falsehoods, because ethanol-laced gasoline is already destroying engines across the country in ever larger numbers.
...
It now appears that in just a few years since the government forced ethanol use on the country, engine and fuel system failures caused by ethanol are causing major damage to more and more new and used vehicles. This means the hapless owners are not only paying for snake oil in lower fuel efficiency and more smog, but pay again when it damages their vehicles and lawn mowers.
...
The premise that ethanol could give America the freedom to one day stop importing oil has always been fraudulent. Another fun fact: If we outlawed gasoline and diesel, thereby removing every last car, truck and SUV from our highways—no vehicles anywhere on any road in the country—America would still have to import oil because we would still use more crude than domestic production can supply.
Why is that? Crude oil is also used to make fertilizers, aviation fuel, home heating oil, and many other products. Not to mention polyester suits for car salesmen.
Full article - Business Week | The Great Ethanol Scam (http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/may2009/bw20090514_058678.htm)[/offsite:3jzvy60f]
More - [offsite:3jzvy60f]The bad news keeps rolling in on how bad the environmental fundamentals are for ethanol. A new study (http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13437705) confirms existing findings that the nitrous oxide emissions from corn farming by itself have been underestimated by a factor of 3-5, canceling out any alleged greenhouse gas benefit from biofuels. Another study finds (http://www.watertechonline.com/news.asp?N_ID=71706) that aggrofuel production may use up to 3X as much water as previously believed.
As for the economics of aggrofuel, the CBO estimates (http://www.peakoil.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=47453) that the diversion of corn to ethanol production was responsible for 10-15% of the big US food price runup in the year ending 4/08. The cascade of effect is typical: this diversion of food to fuel drove up the price of livestock feed and therefore of meat and dairy products, which in turn drove up the price of all foodstuffs.
This is just the tip of ethanol’s malevolent food price influence, which last year led directly to mass shortages, hunger, malnutrition, food riots, and state violence all around the Third World. While an American consumer may have the right to decide to pay more for food so he can continue filling the tank of his SUV, he has no such right to make that decision for his neighbor, let alone to starve the world poor. The moral economy of ethanol is even less sustainable than its fiscal, energy, and environmental economies. Yet so far the American government has chosen to subsidize all of these, to convey to a kept industry however much money and unaccountability is necessary to force zero minus one to equal two.
The ethanol industry is currently in a precarious position. It is not a capitalist but a feudal operation, 100% dependent on the rent-seeking opportunities afforded by government handouts, government-generated captive markets, and high oil prices. It needed all of these to turn a profit, and since oil prices plummeted last year, the business, which had bet contango on Peak Oil price effects and had been building new plants at breakneck speed, found itself overextended and unviable even with massive government assistance. One of the top producers, VeraSun, went into bankruptcy and the others are hurting.
So what can a parasitic industry do when one of its hosts is no longer available? It must seek to feed more on the other, in this case the government. Sure enough, what we’ve been seeing is a frenzy of anti-capitalist, anti-market, rent-seeking lobbying.
The main effort is to get EPA to increase the ethanol/gasoline blend well from the current 10% to 15-20%. There is no economic or practical basis for this whatsoever, just as there no longer is even for the 10%, now that we know that corn ethanol’s energy and environmental promises were lies. Rational policy would dictate that we do away with the existing requirement, and with all ethanol RFS standards. But of course reason has no place in a corporatist system, which is based on distortions, riggings, and rackets. No one in industry or environmental circles wants this blend well increase. Every kind of machinery maker fears that a 15% blend could damage its products (true to the system, the 2007 energy bill absolved the ethanol racket from any liability for engine damage from ethanol products, so any such damage would be completely externalized onto the consumer and product manufacturer).
Source - Wordpress | Russell Bangs | Economics of Ethanol (http://attempter.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/economics-of-ethanol/)[/offsite:3jzvy60f]
Greedy, parasitic cornholes...
More - [offsite:3jzvy60f]E10 Parts Damage/Problems:
Examples of reported damage and problems due to alcohol and/or water in gas and E10 fuel.
Ethanol Gasoline - General Problems/Issues:
1. Phase separation (P/S) of gasoline.
2. Water contamination (W/C) of gasoline.
3. Attract, absorb and hold moisture in fuel tank.
4. Increased occurrence of lean, water-diluted fuel.
5. Vapor lock or fuel starvation.
6. Drop in octane (after water absorption, P/S and W/C occurs).
7. Decreased fuel efficiency and mpg.
8. Decreased life cycle of parts and engine.
9. Decreased shelf life of gasoline.
Engine/Parts Damage:
1. Wear and damage of internal engine parts.
2. Damage to metal, rubber, and plastic parts of fuel system.
3. Corrosion of metal parts in fuel system and engine.
4. Deterioration of elastomers and plastic parts.
5. Deterioration of non-metallic materials.
6. Fuel permeation through flexible fuel lines.
7. Drying, softening, stretching and/or cracking of rubber hoses, seals and other rubber components.
8. Oxygen sensor damage.
9. Damage or premature disintegration of fuel pump.
10. Carburetor damage, including clogging.
11. Dirty and clogged fuel filters.
12. Clogging and plugging of fuel injectors.
13. Destruction of certain fiberglass fuel tanks.
14. Removal or fading of paint and varnish (both internal and external parts of engine).
15. Piston/bore failure through knock/pre-ignition.
16. Piston ring sticking.
17. Unsuitable ignition timing resulting in ignition failure.
18. Gumming-up of fuel injectors, carburetors, etc. due to release of accumulated deposits in engine from ethanol alcohol's solvent properties.
E10 Drivability Issues:
1. Engine performance problems.
2. Hard starting and operating difficulty.
3. Hesitation and lack of acceleration.
4. Stalling, especially at low speeds.
Source -List: E10 Engine Damage and Performance Problems (http://www.fueltestkit.com/list_e10_engine_damage.html)[/offsite:3jzvy60f]
Good news in California:
[offsite:3jzvy60f]Ethanol producers reacted with dismay to California’s approval of the nation’s first low-carbon fuel standard, (http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr042309b.htm) which will require the state’s mix of fuels to be 10 percent lower in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
In a 9-1 vote late Thursday, the state’s Air Resources Board approved the measure (see background (http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/california-weighs-low-carbon-fuel-standard/) here).
“The drive to force the market toward greater use of alternative fuels will be a boon to the state’s economy and public health — it reduces air pollution, creates new jobs and continues California’s leadership in the fight against global warming,” said the California board’s chairwoman, Mary D. Nichols, in a statement.
But the ethanol industry is concerned that the regulations give a poor emissions score to their corn-based product, in some cases ranking it as a bigger emitter than petroleum.
Source - NYTimes | California Fuel Move Angers Ethanol Makers (http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/california-fuel-move-angers-ethanol-makers/)[/offsite:3jzvy60f]
More - [offsite:3jzvy60f]Most ethanol used for fuel is being blended into gasoline at concentrations of 5 to 10 percent. In California, ethanol has replaced methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) as a gasoline component. More than 95 percent of the gasoline supplied in the state today contains 6 percent ethanol.
Source - Consumer Energy Center | Ethanol as a transportation fuel (http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/afvs/ethanol.html)[/offsite:3jzvy60f]
Being a resident of Cali, 6% ethanol as an oxygenating fuel additive is way better than having MTBE in our groundwater.
But I still prefer my ethanol 99 proof, straight up with a water back.
Does the trick, nice and quick...
More than one major transportation-based industry in America besides Detroit is on the ropes. For the fourth time in our history the ethanol industry has come undone and is quickly failing nationally. Of course it's one thing when Detroit collapsed with the economy; after all, that is a truly free-market enterprise and the economy hasn't been good. But the fact that the ethanol industry is going bankrupt, when the only reason we use this additive is a massive government mandate, is outrageous at best.
Then again, the ethanol lobby and refiners have a solution to ethanol's failure in America: Hire retired General Wesley Clark as your point man and lobby the government to increase the amount of ethanol in our fuel to 15%. The problems with that proposition are real—unlike ethanol's benefits.
Where's the Logic?
First, the primary job of the Environmental Protection Agency is, dare it be said, to protect our environment. Yet using ethanol actually creates more smog than using regular gas, and the EPA's own attorneys had to admit that fact in front of the justices presiding over the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1995 (API v. EPA).
Second, truly independent studies on ethanol, such as those written by Tad Patzek of Berkeley and David Pimentel of Cornell, show that ethanol is a net energy loser. Other studies suggest there is a small net energy gain from it.
Third, all fuels laced with ethanol reduce the vehicle's fuel efficiency, and the E85 blend drops gas mileage between 30% and 40%, depending on whether you use the EPA's fuel mileage standards (fueleconomy.gov) or those of the Dept. of Energy.
Fourth, forget what biofuels have done to the price of foodstuffs worldwide over the past three years; the science seems to suggest that using ethanol increases global warming emissions over the use of straight gasoline. Just these issues should have kept ethanol from being brought back for its fourth run in American history.
Don't let anybody mislead you: The new push to get a 15% ethanol mandate out of Washington is simply to restore profitability to a failed industry. Only this time around those promoting more ethanol in our gas say there's no scientific proof that adding more ethanol will damage vehicles or small gas-powered engines. With that statement they've gone from shilling the public to outright falsehoods, because ethanol-laced gasoline is already destroying engines across the country in ever larger numbers.
...
It now appears that in just a few years since the government forced ethanol use on the country, engine and fuel system failures caused by ethanol are causing major damage to more and more new and used vehicles. This means the hapless owners are not only paying for snake oil in lower fuel efficiency and more smog, but pay again when it damages their vehicles and lawn mowers.
...
The premise that ethanol could give America the freedom to one day stop importing oil has always been fraudulent. Another fun fact: If we outlawed gasoline and diesel, thereby removing every last car, truck and SUV from our highways—no vehicles anywhere on any road in the country—America would still have to import oil because we would still use more crude than domestic production can supply.
Why is that? Crude oil is also used to make fertilizers, aviation fuel, home heating oil, and many other products. Not to mention polyester suits for car salesmen.
Full article - Business Week | The Great Ethanol Scam (http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/may2009/bw20090514_058678.htm)[/offsite:3jzvy60f]
More - [offsite:3jzvy60f]The bad news keeps rolling in on how bad the environmental fundamentals are for ethanol. A new study (http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13437705) confirms existing findings that the nitrous oxide emissions from corn farming by itself have been underestimated by a factor of 3-5, canceling out any alleged greenhouse gas benefit from biofuels. Another study finds (http://www.watertechonline.com/news.asp?N_ID=71706) that aggrofuel production may use up to 3X as much water as previously believed.
As for the economics of aggrofuel, the CBO estimates (http://www.peakoil.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=47453) that the diversion of corn to ethanol production was responsible for 10-15% of the big US food price runup in the year ending 4/08. The cascade of effect is typical: this diversion of food to fuel drove up the price of livestock feed and therefore of meat and dairy products, which in turn drove up the price of all foodstuffs.
This is just the tip of ethanol’s malevolent food price influence, which last year led directly to mass shortages, hunger, malnutrition, food riots, and state violence all around the Third World. While an American consumer may have the right to decide to pay more for food so he can continue filling the tank of his SUV, he has no such right to make that decision for his neighbor, let alone to starve the world poor. The moral economy of ethanol is even less sustainable than its fiscal, energy, and environmental economies. Yet so far the American government has chosen to subsidize all of these, to convey to a kept industry however much money and unaccountability is necessary to force zero minus one to equal two.
The ethanol industry is currently in a precarious position. It is not a capitalist but a feudal operation, 100% dependent on the rent-seeking opportunities afforded by government handouts, government-generated captive markets, and high oil prices. It needed all of these to turn a profit, and since oil prices plummeted last year, the business, which had bet contango on Peak Oil price effects and had been building new plants at breakneck speed, found itself overextended and unviable even with massive government assistance. One of the top producers, VeraSun, went into bankruptcy and the others are hurting.
So what can a parasitic industry do when one of its hosts is no longer available? It must seek to feed more on the other, in this case the government. Sure enough, what we’ve been seeing is a frenzy of anti-capitalist, anti-market, rent-seeking lobbying.
The main effort is to get EPA to increase the ethanol/gasoline blend well from the current 10% to 15-20%. There is no economic or practical basis for this whatsoever, just as there no longer is even for the 10%, now that we know that corn ethanol’s energy and environmental promises were lies. Rational policy would dictate that we do away with the existing requirement, and with all ethanol RFS standards. But of course reason has no place in a corporatist system, which is based on distortions, riggings, and rackets. No one in industry or environmental circles wants this blend well increase. Every kind of machinery maker fears that a 15% blend could damage its products (true to the system, the 2007 energy bill absolved the ethanol racket from any liability for engine damage from ethanol products, so any such damage would be completely externalized onto the consumer and product manufacturer).
Source - Wordpress | Russell Bangs | Economics of Ethanol (http://attempter.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/economics-of-ethanol/)[/offsite:3jzvy60f]
Greedy, parasitic cornholes...
More - [offsite:3jzvy60f]E10 Parts Damage/Problems:
Examples of reported damage and problems due to alcohol and/or water in gas and E10 fuel.
Ethanol Gasoline - General Problems/Issues:
1. Phase separation (P/S) of gasoline.
2. Water contamination (W/C) of gasoline.
3. Attract, absorb and hold moisture in fuel tank.
4. Increased occurrence of lean, water-diluted fuel.
5. Vapor lock or fuel starvation.
6. Drop in octane (after water absorption, P/S and W/C occurs).
7. Decreased fuel efficiency and mpg.
8. Decreased life cycle of parts and engine.
9. Decreased shelf life of gasoline.
Engine/Parts Damage:
1. Wear and damage of internal engine parts.
2. Damage to metal, rubber, and plastic parts of fuel system.
3. Corrosion of metal parts in fuel system and engine.
4. Deterioration of elastomers and plastic parts.
5. Deterioration of non-metallic materials.
6. Fuel permeation through flexible fuel lines.
7. Drying, softening, stretching and/or cracking of rubber hoses, seals and other rubber components.
8. Oxygen sensor damage.
9. Damage or premature disintegration of fuel pump.
10. Carburetor damage, including clogging.
11. Dirty and clogged fuel filters.
12. Clogging and plugging of fuel injectors.
13. Destruction of certain fiberglass fuel tanks.
14. Removal or fading of paint and varnish (both internal and external parts of engine).
15. Piston/bore failure through knock/pre-ignition.
16. Piston ring sticking.
17. Unsuitable ignition timing resulting in ignition failure.
18. Gumming-up of fuel injectors, carburetors, etc. due to release of accumulated deposits in engine from ethanol alcohol's solvent properties.
E10 Drivability Issues:
1. Engine performance problems.
2. Hard starting and operating difficulty.
3. Hesitation and lack of acceleration.
4. Stalling, especially at low speeds.
Source -List: E10 Engine Damage and Performance Problems (http://www.fueltestkit.com/list_e10_engine_damage.html)[/offsite:3jzvy60f]
Good news in California:
[offsite:3jzvy60f]Ethanol producers reacted with dismay to California’s approval of the nation’s first low-carbon fuel standard, (http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr042309b.htm) which will require the state’s mix of fuels to be 10 percent lower in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
In a 9-1 vote late Thursday, the state’s Air Resources Board approved the measure (see background (http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/california-weighs-low-carbon-fuel-standard/) here).
“The drive to force the market toward greater use of alternative fuels will be a boon to the state’s economy and public health — it reduces air pollution, creates new jobs and continues California’s leadership in the fight against global warming,” said the California board’s chairwoman, Mary D. Nichols, in a statement.
But the ethanol industry is concerned that the regulations give a poor emissions score to their corn-based product, in some cases ranking it as a bigger emitter than petroleum.
Source - NYTimes | California Fuel Move Angers Ethanol Makers (http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/california-fuel-move-angers-ethanol-makers/)[/offsite:3jzvy60f]
More - [offsite:3jzvy60f]Most ethanol used for fuel is being blended into gasoline at concentrations of 5 to 10 percent. In California, ethanol has replaced methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) as a gasoline component. More than 95 percent of the gasoline supplied in the state today contains 6 percent ethanol.
Source - Consumer Energy Center | Ethanol as a transportation fuel (http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/afvs/ethanol.html)[/offsite:3jzvy60f]
Being a resident of Cali, 6% ethanol as an oxygenating fuel additive is way better than having MTBE in our groundwater.
But I still prefer my ethanol 99 proof, straight up with a water back.
Does the trick, nice and quick...