By Bill Kovarik
Roanoke Times, Sept. 4, 2011.
The ethanol industry has attracted many critics over the years. Much of the criticism is well meant and should be well taken. The yardsticks that are usually applied to the industry – carbon footprint, biodiversity, competition between food and fuel, government subsidies, air and water quality – are certainly appropriate, even if they are rarely applied equally to all energy industries.
But the critics tend to miss the most important point about the historical reason for the development of the ethanol industry. The primary reason for blending ethanol in gasoline is NOT to replace Middle Eastern oil. (That was always a secondary issue.)
The reason that today’s corn ethanol industry has become so large is that the oil industry does not have a safe additive to bring gasoline up to 87 octane.
Back in the 1970s, when the Richmond-based Ethyl Corp.’s leaded gasoline additive was replaced as a grave public health hazard, the oil industry resorted to severe reforming of crude oil to obtain gasoline with minimal octane levels. This gasoline had high levels of benzene and related carcinogens. That’s why your local service station now has signs warning about unleaded gasoline and carcinogenic compounds in gasoline.
In 1990, Congress worked with President George H.W. Bush’s Environmental Protection Agency to amend the Clean Air Act and eliminate benzene and other carcinogens in gasoline. The law mandated two new types of oxygenated octane boosters: These were 1. MTBE, made from petroleum, which they thought would be used mostly on the east and west coasts, and 2. blends of 10 percent ethanol made from corn, which they thought would be used mostly in the heartland and eventually replaced by cellulosic biofuels.
As it turned out, MTBE was a serious water pollutant. Like lead and benzene, it was banned in the late 1990s.
That left corn ethanol, and the industry was not at all ready for prime time. It jumped from a few billion gallons of annual production to more than 14 billion in the space of a few short years. And as it grew, its critics became increasingly vocal. Much of the criticism was fueled by the oil industry, which was dismayed at losing such a large portion of its market.
There’s no space to address all the issues here, but it should be said that ethanol is in fact energy positive (although only marginally so), and does not take food out of the mouths of starving children (since leftover corn is fed to livestock with 90 percent of the original protein value).
In addition, ethanol is well proven to be far cleaner than gasoline in terms of air and water pollution.
However, the long-term pressure on agriculture is a serious issue in terms of world food resources, and supplying the growing demand for energy could very well come at the price of starvation in the developing world, as critics have warned. This is a point in favor of second- and third-generation biofuels, which have long been known as better but more technically difficult.
Unfortunately, the ethanol debate has largely been one-sided. Unwilling to engage its critics and admit its mistakes, the ethanol industry has sheltered behind a high-level public relations campaign focused on Congress. This has left the field of public opinion open to those who have no interest in getting to the bottom of seriously complex scientific and public health issues.
For all its problems, there are major issues with the idea of eliminating ethanol blends in gasoline. Most importantly, what octane booster will replace it? Leaded gasoline, benzene, MTBE or other metallic compounds? Are we ready for yet another public health debacle?
It’s also worth considering the way that alternative energy sources are treated in the U.S. Following a period of enthusiasm, tax credits are enacted, then as problems are encountered, a wave of negative publicity builds. Eventually the tax credits are withdrawn and the alternative energy industry collapses. This has happened with solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy sources except ethanol since, until recently, ethanol was primarily supported by Midwestern Republicans.
Today, some people say that government shouldn’t be in the business of choosing technologies. They say they want an unregulated marketplace. But if that were true, we wouldn’t have military protection for the Persian Gulf, we wouldn’t have an insurance ceiling for the nuclear power industry, and we would still be talking about taking the lead out of gasoline.
We need to remember our history and use a little common sense in our energy policy before taking thoughtless actions we may later come to regret.
From an economics professor:
I have always had the impression that ethanol was used as a ‘replacement’ for gasoline, i.e., to stretch it further by using a ‘clean’ substitute for the polluting petroleum-based gasoline.
I have heard from a number of my acquaintances that gasoline containing 10% ethanol reduces one’s gas mileage by about 15%. And, I have also heard that gasoline containing 10% ethanol also significantly reduces the ‘power’ of one’s engine performance.
However, if ethanol is used to increase the octane level of gasoline, then the second comment above is obviously incorrect. In fact it must be exactly the opposite. Am I correct here?
I wonder why the ‘conventional wisdom’ about reduced MPG and power, when using ethanol, is so wide-spread.
Response to the economics professor:
The points you mention are not mutually contradictory because there are several factors at work in matching fuels and internal combustion engines for optimal performance.
On the one hand, ethanol has a higher octane value compared to gasoline, which means it can be used in higher compression engines. Pure ethanol can run in 10:1 or 12:1 CR engines, while gasoline is a mix of fuels in the 80+ octane range that often require catalytic reforming or some additional treatment to bring it up to 87 to 92 octane levels for 7:1 CR engines. The problem is that reforming increases the levels of aromatics hydrocarbons such as benzene, toluene and xylene (BTX) compounds, which EPA calls “air toxics.”
On the other hand, ethanol has a lower BTU value, which means it doesnt deliver as much power in lower compression engines as does gasoline.
So the conventional wisdom about ethanol reducing engine efficiency (mileage) is a half-truth.
Yes, it reduces mileage in lower compression engines. But it improves combustion efficiency (compression) allows the use of higher compression engines. This more than makes up for the reduction in BTU value in a higher compression engine.
The efficiency of ethanol in higher compression engines has been a non-controversial conclusion of mechanical engineering research since 1907.
See for instance
http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/papers/fuel.html#science
Bill Kovarik
Gasoline with ethanol definitively does reduce mileage, Ford puts out a chart showing that an Expedition with a 5.4L V8 can get 20mph with regular 87 octane gasoline, if gas use is E85 that top mileage drops to 16mph. Driving with both , that is the case. It ruins all small engines if left any period of time without running them unless an expensive additive is added. It is the death of two cycle engines with a diaphragm type carburetor instead of a bowl like on 4 cycle engines. Both have to have carbs rebuilt if left sitting any length of time. The two cycle, you have to replace the diaphragm because it hardens and is of no use. Boat motors are being destroyed by this ethanol fuel. The lower mileage we get, the more we have to import oil. This is one of the most ill conceived scams ever forced on the American public.Not only does it cost billions in untold damages but it has driven up the cost of corn worldwide. It benefits only one industry and that is large Agribusiness. There are efforts to remove this additive. If you see petitions to remove it , please sign them. We have an abundance of natural gas that could take the place of gasoline for fuel. A NASA style to bring natural.gas to stations all over the USA would be a boom to the economy, at the same time complete conversation of all autos and trucks/buses to gas wold help fuel the boom. We are bringing in new well every day with the shale oil finds. This could carry us many years until the hydrogen fuel cell is developed without buying foreign oil.Research the subject, talk wit your congress about removing ethanol from our gasoline.
It’s been long known — since 1907 at least — that the octane boosting benefit of ethanol is munted when it runs in a low compression engine. If you run E-85 in a conventional gasoline engine, of course the mileage goes down slightly. But on the other hand, E-85 lets you raise the compression for better mileage, and new turbo systems will allow compression adjustments. Overall, ethanol is a better internal combustion fuel from the standpoint of compression ratio and combustion efficiency. To say ethanol is an ill conceived scam is obviously an irrational and prejudicial remark that doesnt deserve comment. To insist that we remain with fossil fuels and leave national security in the hands of the oil industry is short sighted. Yes, I agree, research the subject. Let’s have some facts as opposed to prejudice.