Senators Introduce BioFuels Security Act (Harkin, Lugar, Biden, Dorgan, Obama)

[jpak]

http://www.agweb.com/get_article.aspx?pageid=133656&src=gennews

On the first day of the new Congress, Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA), Richard G. Lugar (R-IN), Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE), Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) and Barack Obama (D-IL) introduced legislation that will increase American drivers' access to ethanol at fuel pumps. Currently, the United States imports more than 60 percent of its oil, and our consumption continues to increase - further subjecting consumers to the whims of the world oil market. Over sixty percent of the world's oil reserves are held in the Middle East, handcuffing our foreign policy.

American drivers can help reverse our oil dependence by filling up with ethanol blends like E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gas) or biodiesel, say the Senators. They say increasing the use of ethanol will reduce our oil consumption and give us an environmentally friendly, domestically produced source of fuel.

Today, Sens. Harkin, Lugar, Biden, Dorgan and Obama offered legislation, titled the BioFuels Security Act, to increase renewable fuels use through higher renewable fuels standards (RFS), greater availability of ethanol pumps and increased production of cars equipped to run on alternative fuel sources.

"For too long, we've depended on importing oil to meet our energy needs," Senator Harkin said. "This legislation lays the roadmap to a long-term ramp-up in domestically produced renewable fuels. I believe if we are to attain national and economic security for our nation, we can and we must achieve these aggressive goals."

<more>

[illinoisprogressive]

1. We already have E85 here in Illinois. We must look for new energy.

[4dsc]

2. Big whoop!!

E85 gives you less mileage than regular gas. It costs you more to use it than regualr gas.. Its a waste of taxpayers monies and food!!

[Possumpoint]

3. Correct Me If I'm Wrong

Doesn't ethanol cost more in energy to produce then it provides. Also, something to the effect it has to be delivered by truck because it is so corrosive that it adversely affects the normal delivery system of being pumped through cross country pipes. Because of this, I wonder if the real purpose of this legislation is to promote the interests of farmer corporations and ethanol producers? Guess I've gotten cynical in my outlook with politicians.

[jpak]

5. You're wrong

The EROEI for ethanol is ~1.25 and it is primarily transported by rail/barge/truck tankers, not pipelines.

[Dover]

4. ....and this is it? This is what the new and 'improved' Dem gov. brings to the table?

What a load of......ethanol!

[Dean Martin]

6. very few cars run on it

My car doesn't run on E85. Can't be converted. I can't afford a new car, or even a used car. I don't see it as any kind of solution.

[poopfuel]

7. what do you drive?

When I had access to E 85 one weekend, I put a half tank in twice. Car ran fine, no problems.
Any car can be converted. If yours is a pre-fuel injection model, you just need a few hoses replaced.

[Dean Martin]

8. conversion.

I could convert for around $400. I was not aware an engine could be converted. However, at my income level a loss of 2 to 30% in fuel economy would be devastating to my pocket book. At this time I cannot afford to convert the vehicle I have to E85. My best choice would be to attempt to save my pennies to trade for a hybrid.

[poopfuel]

9. how old is your car?

Conversion should not be so expensive. Shop around. Remember, e-85 sells for less than gas. A hybrid is fine but you can run that on E-85 without adjustments, the computer in it responds to the difference in air=fuel mixture.

Not sure where a 20,000 dollar hybrid car is going be affordable for you based on what you describe. A couple people I've talked to in the Midwest ran their cars on ethanol from the beginning of owning their cars. After 175,000 miles, the engine is still as clean and smooth running as ever.

[Dean Martin]

11. Interesting

Because I've heard E85 is more corrosive on an engine than regular fuel.

[JohnWxy]

12. GM and Ford are selling lots of Flexible Fuel Vehicles and dont' charge a penny more for them than

for a regular gasoline only car. Buy a hybrid and spend $3,000 to $5,000 more for it. GM is coming out this year (I think) with a Saturn hybrid which may be only $2,000 extra.

Since very few ethanol pumps are around (EXXON-Mobil and the other oil companies haven't shown a whole lot of interest in putting them in) so maybe that explains why GM and Ford haven't done anythng to provide FFV with engines which take advantage of the higher octane of ethanol85 (105 vs gasoline 92-93 High test). But that will change. In this years Detroit Auto Show Ford will be unveiling a car with a direct injection engine which when running on ethanol and gas achieves 15% better gas mileage than an engine of comparable power would operating on gasoline only.

Any car that uses gasoline can use ethanol blended gas up to 10% to 15% ethanol without any modification. - although this too is hard to find. Well, not exactly. Depending on where you live, the oil companies are moving fasst to replace MTBE with ethanol. Depending on where you live you will be using gas that has 6% to 10% ethanol content.

There is hardly any noticable difference in mileage with 10% ethanol gasoline. If the engine had a sensor to detect the 10% blend it could adjust spark timing (more advance) and you would get slightly better mileage with 10% blend (higher octane produces more power, burns better allowing more spark advance.).

[Dean Martin]

13. But hybrids

Get 60 mph whereas E85 cars don't get any better mileage than regular cars. Some of the E85s get worse mileage. I've read up to 25% worse. That kind of fuel economy would more than offset any savings I'd get at the pump, if it's true.

[poopfuel]

14. myth about corrosion

It's been bandied about for years but it's come from sources who can't distinguish methanol from ethanol.

I still don't know how old your car is. But if it's fuel injected, you can probably run your car 50 50 on ethanol/gas. If you want to get serious about your conversion, you can convert your engine so it gets more efficient gas mileage. And hybrids don't get 60 mph, that's a myth my mom learned the hard way. Hybrids are great commuter cars but if you are only an occasional user, don't bother.
Look out for a new book on the subject of ethanol at permaculture.com

[JohnWxy]

16. Current US FFVs aren't set up to take advantage of the higher octane of ethanol.

But that's going to change:



MIT startup working with Ford to mass produce ethanol direct injected engine - gets 30% better mileage

Ford to Introduce New E85-Capable, Direct Injection, Turbocharged Engine - 15% better mileage than on strait gasoline

[JohnWxy]

18. Actually dean, regarding 10%-15% ethanol all cars that burn gasoline can use 10% to 15% ethanol.

That includes the car you are driving right now. As the oil companies replace MTBE with ethanol, depending on where you are, you will be using ethanol - 6% to 10% blend.

HEre is a test of a 2005 Taurus, 2005 Impala and a 2005 Camry running on ethanol 10%, 20% and 30%. The mileage differences were extremely slight. Actually, in one case, with the Impala on 30% ethanol, the car got slightly better mileage on the ethanol. But note, it's not recommended to use more than 10% or 15% ethanol in a non FFV (and manufacturers say use only 10% etrhanol).

now, they also tested another ethanol fuel it was "denatured fuel with soy diesel and
isopentane, and that the original tests of Reid vapor pressure (RVP) had shown lower
RVP in blends made with ethanol denatured in that fashion. This fuel blend was added to
the list of fuels to be tested." This fuel, in the Impala, actually got 2 mpg better than with regular unleaded gasoline.

While vehicles using concentrations of ethanol higher than 10% operated normally during this test, the American Coalition for Ethanol cannot recommend using ethanol blends with higher concentrations of ethanol than those recommended by the vehicle’s manufacturer. It should be noted that each vehicle in this test ran only 600 of its 1500 miles on E20 or E30, and while the short-term results were good, more study is needed to determine if there are any long-term consequences.

This pilot study appears to confirm that BTU content is not a direct indication of the amount of work a vehicle can do with a given quantity of fuel. Other properties of ethanol seem to minimize the effects of lower BTU content. Admittedly, the test used a very small sample, but the results suggest that a larger and more detailed study be completed in the near future.

Given the differences found between BTU and mileage in this test, a study of the differences in fuel economy between unleaded and E85 in flexible fuel vehicles should also be investigated. Currently, mileage is assumed to be almost 30% lower when using E85, while anecdotal evidence indicates that actual MPG performance of E85 is much better than that estimate.

[poopfuel]

19. hi john

ACE ultimately does not want to be held liable for recommending something manufacturers do not recommend. That's why they say don't do it.

But that hasn't stopped a mess of people putting ethanol in their regular engines anyway. In South Dakota, they've been testing it informally for some time, finding it's not harmed any of the cars they've tested.

But that's kind of off the book.

[JohnWxy]

20. It's my understanding that you can use ethanol blends up to 15% without any problems. I just think

auto manufacturers want to put a extra margin of safety in there.

I wouldn't recommend people going above 10% for the same reason - just in case.

What I would like to see is for ethanol 10% be made available first (instead of 85%). Then everybody could help reduce demand for oil by 10%. Later, as more ethanol is being made make 20% ethanol available for those who have FFVs. AND ALSO, manufacturers should include sensors in the FFV engines so that when they are using 20% ethanol the ignition timing would be adjusted (a little more spark advance) to make proper use of the slightly higher octane rating resulting in an improvement in gas mileage (not a whole lot mind you, but every little bit helps). THis would help the acceptance of ethanol.

of course, over the next couple of years as the oil companies replace MTBE with ethanol we all will be using ethanol blends of 6% to 10% depending on where you live(or drive).

[The2ndWheel]

10. Nothing changes then

"introduced legislation that will increase American drivers' access"

Wow, there's that word increase again.

"and our consumption continues to increase"

Again!

"further subjecting consumers to the whims of the world oil market."

Which will eventually be replaced by Big Biofuel corporations. They'll consolidate power just like oil companies did. Then we'll have nowhere to go. I'm sure we'll just increase something to make the pain go away.

[amandabeech]

15. Off the top of my head, if all farmland in the U.S. were turned to

corn production for ethanol at the current average yield per acre, only a small percentage of the gasoline that we used would be replaced.

Then, from the ethanol, one should subtract the amount of oil and gas products used in the production and transport of the ethanol.

Cellulosic ethanol may add more, but we're not talking a magic bullet here, at least as a replacement for amount of gasoline that we use now.

I like Harkin a lot. Worked for him in his '92 presidential run. However, I don't think that this plan will really scale up all that well.

It might, however, get us a few votes.

[JohnWxy]

17. Can you name any alternative to gasoline, AVAILABLE NOW that can replace ALL the gasoline used in

transportation. I'll save you some effort. THERE IS NONE. The only technology thought to have the strongest potential for replacing ALL the gasolilne from transportation is Fuel Cell technology. And that is a couple of decades away from being commercially viable. Should we sit around and do nothing while we wait for fuel cells to come along? I don't think so. (Hybrids are a nice idea though very expensive. It will take 15 to 20 years for hybrids to be replacing possibly 10% of the gasoline. Current hybrids in real life driving reduce gas consumption by about 25%. IF 1/5th of the all the cars on the road were hybrids that would produce a 5% reduction in total gasoline consumption (Note: .2*.25=.05).) Even with very strong growth in sales it will take 15 to 20 years to bring hybrids up to 20% of the total automotive fleet.

Ethanol from corn has been demonstrated over and over again to produce more energy in the fuel than is consumed in the production process (including farming) by Michigan State University (56% net energy gain), US Dept. of Agriculture (76% net gain), Argonne National Laboratory, Colorado School of Mines, Agri-foods Canada. One study by Oliviera (sp?) showed only a 10% net gain but they did not include coproduct credits (a tactic used by Pimentel and Patzek) which invalidates his findings.

Efficiency gains are being made all the time by ethanol producers and by farmers. Engine designers are now starting to think of taking advantage of the high ocatane rating of ethanol (gasoline high test= 92-93, ethanol = 113) using turbo charging to gain a boost in cylinder chamber pressure and direct injection of ethanol. MIT researchers have designed an engine which uses direct injection of ethanol and turbo-charging to achieve 30% BETTER miles per gallon figures than you can with a gasoline only powered engine (the high power output enables them to reduce the size of the engine. smaller engine less gas used). The engine only uses 5% ethanol with 95% gasoline. To put this in perspective, if all the cars on the road had this engine in them with a quantity of ethanol equal to 5% of the total fuel supply you would get a 30% reduction of total gasoline consumption. We will be producing ethanol in a quantity equal to 5% of the gasoline supply probably in 2 to 3 years. The engine will add $600 to $1,000 to the cost of a car, according to MIT researchers. The MIT scientists who designed the engine have formed a company and are working with Ford to mass produce this engine by 2011.

Cellulosic ethanol is several times as productive as corn in making ethanol and is expected to be commercially viable in about 5 yrs. At that time the current boom in ethanol plant construction will also pay off in that with retrofits these plants will be able to produce cellulosic ethanol and will speed up the scaling up of production of cellulosic ethanol.

Cellulosic ethanol is predicted to provide 33% of gasoline demand (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). But if 5% were used in the MIT designed engine that would give you 30% reduction in gasoline usage (if every car was using this engine) that would leave a 28% supply (as a percentage of total gasoline demand) of ethanol to be blended with the gasoline. so what would the total reduction of gasoline demand be under this scenario? 30% + 28% = 58%. And I haven't talked about the Iowa State patented process using ultra-sound to boost alcohol yield 30%, or the MIT genetically altered yeast (which is more tolerant of alcohol and therefor can ferment more of it) which could boost alcohol (ethanol) production another 50% (this still in the R&D stage).

$600 to $1,000 per car, 58% of the gasoline supply? It's not 100% but it ain't too bad!

But as far as what other technology we have right now that can replace ALL the gasoline - THERE AIN'T NONE, OTHER THAN ETHANOL, RIGHT NOW.