Does not grow well in the corn belt.

Sugarcane cultivation requires a tropical or subtropical climate, with a minimum of 600 mm (24 in) of annual moisture. It is one of the most efficient photosynthsizers in the plant kingdom, able to convert up to 2% of incident solar energy into biomass. In prime growing regions, such as Hawaii, sugarcane can produce 20 kg for each square metre exposed to the sun.

 

I did read the articles. But the point I wanted to make is that neither states the actual facts of why an ethanol based fuel will ultimately fail (government subsidies aren't it). It's because to extract ethanol as a fuel from the plant based sugars, it takes more energy to create the fuel than the actual energy the fuel will produce. So unless the population is willing to dump huge amounts of moola into subsidation purely for fuel, ethanol is a not a very smart road to walk down in terms of a future fuel source.

And the reason a car gets less mpg with ethanol is because ethanol carries a lower energy/mass than conventional gasoline even though it carries a higher energy/particle (hence the higher "octane rating" of ethanol).

 

The energy deficit issue was a problem up until a few years ago. Technology has improved in both farming to increase yield per farmed acre and in the distillation process (more efficient enzymes are part of that and have the greatest opportunity to increase efficiency in the future as new enzymes and yeasts are discovered).

Brazil has replaced nearly half of it's gasoline consumption with ethanol, primarily due to a very efficient production process (from sugar cane growing to distribution is very efficient).

Sugar cane is the best and sugar beets are close behind in carbohydrates per gram (half of the sugar produced in the US comes from beets). Corn is much less efficient. However, sugar beat production can be increased in the northern mid-west states and sugar cane production increased in Florida and Louisiana.

However, one of the problems for the US to use sugar instead of corn is price. Sugar is a very cheap commodity for most of the world but not in the US. This high price is artificially created by a huge tariff that has been in effect since 1934. Of course why it is still around is very political.

Also, ethanol storage is actually easier than gasoline. Oil products are quite toxic and usually do not clean up very easily when spilled. This requires extra care in containment (double hulled tankers, secondary containment structures for tank farms, etc). Oil based products require special polymer containers or metal vessels. Ethanol does not. It can be stored in wood barrels if necessary (and frequently is for years until it tastes just right ) Further, if spilled the impacts to the environment are much lower since it is a biodegradable organic compound and miscible in water (ie you can wash it away). The storage myth comes from the fact that mild steel vessels used today for fuel storage are not so good for ethanol since it is more corrosive. However, most new local gas stations are no longer using metal tanks for underground storage, but rather polymer resin based tanks, which can be used for either ethanol or gasoline.

 

The low energy yield in production is mentioned in the articles, but no one has accurate enough data to prove it is negative as you are saying. Detractors claim one thing and proponents another but neither can produce current numbers that are widely accepted.

The fact that there is a lower energy content in the fuel is also mentioned.

Many on this board are aware of the issues, the articles provide more background, better detail, and show both sides of the discussion. Unfortunately this is a battle for dollars (with an emotional component for many with an environmental bias) that has led to miss-information from many sides.

 

You knew sooner or later I'd have to chime in, so...

Like all potential fuels ethanol (ethyl alcohol) has its pluses and minuses. Less energy per volume than gasoline (hexanes), but burns cooler (less potential for detonation, and yes, you can run more timing). One other characteristic (as pointed out) is that it is miscible with water, meaning it's easier to clean up...hell, if it's not denatured just hand out straws! But, it also picks up water (absorbs water from the air or ground...potentially leading to rust/corrosion in the fuel system. Also, partial combustion (oxidation) of ethanol can lead to acetaldehyde...the stuff that makes you feel like @#%$ in the morning. It's toxic, like formaldehyde...I'm not sure what levels in the exhaust gas are, but if there's even a trace amount in places like LA or NYC it could accumulate and be a problem. Lastly, the cost to produce ethanol (right now) is high compared to gasoline (at least in money...perhaps not in lives, but that's another story).

 

It will take time to sort out all the pro's and con's. Cost, transportation, and even pollution are issues to be worked.

"(AP) Factories that convert corn into the gasoline additive ethanol are releasing carbon monoxide, methanol and some carcinogens at levels "many times greater" than they promised, the government says."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/03/...ain508006.shtml

 

Ethanol is the blend of choice now the the EPA has decided to quit poisoning the ground water with MTBEs. We are also being forced to use it in the DFW area. My sources indicate that we are paying about $.15 per gallon extra for the privilege. The numbers seem to bear this out.

Dallas gas price average (ethanol blend) = $2.80

Houston gas price average (ethanol blend) = $2.82

Corpus Christi gas price average (std gas) = $2.67

San Antonio gas price average (std gas) = $2.67


Corpus and Houston both have refineries on site, so the price should be pretty much the same except for the required ethanol blend.

Another issue with ethanol. They say that running 85% (E85) in a vehicle not designed for it will essentially ruin the fuel system, plus it will run like crud, while it runs. But 10% ethanol is fine. This may seem like over simplifying, but if putting your hand in 85% acid is really bad, it's hard for me to believe that putting your hand in 10% acid isn't going to do anything harmful, especially over a long period of time.

One more thing. My understanding is that gas prices would drop by something like $.30 per gallon tomorrow if we went back to the old two gasoline formulation structure (high/low altitude), even if we used the absolute cleanest formulation available. I guess I'm done now. Sorry for the long post.