Talk:Ethanol fuel/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Original Research

The reference that begins "In 2005, United States gasoline consumption was ..." was removed as original research. When it was added back by revert, SillyBilly stated "those were facts, not original research". It is true that the reference includes citations to verifiable facts. However, it cites those facts in order to support a conclusion - namely that "A sustainable bio-ethanol program for the United States could require 1.5 billion acres." As stated in the reference, this is the conclusion of the editor and not of a verifiable external source. No matter how well researched or well argued the conclusion is, it still should not be included unless it can be attributed to a reliable external source. Quoting from Wikipedia:No_original_research

'"A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Ucanlookitup 03:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)'

Is this a reason to send the whole remark to /dev/null ? --hdante 16:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion it is. I choose an example to illustrate the point, but the entire reference is an original analysis to support a particular view that ethanol is not a viable replacement for oil. Ucanlookitup 17:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

http://www.sugre.info/tools.phtml?id=515# - not directly relevant

  • Ethanol in Brazil [1] - not open to the public
  • Ethanol Facts, provided by the National Corn Growers Association. - NPOV

^^^^Um... links aren't banned on NPOV grounds. Don't forget, we don't achieve NPOV by avoiding POV, we achieve it by including all notable POVs.WolfKeeper 20:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethanol as a fuel (section in ethanol)

The section 'as a fuel' in ethanol grows and grows, while I think it is more appropriate in this page (it really should just be a single-paragraph section with only the bare minimum and a {{main}}). I have added a mergeto/mergefrom to the section resp article. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Merged the stuff. I don't understand why some of the things keep getting rehashed. Advocacy?--Rifleman 82 11:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the move. That's why I advocated a move of all of the data to ethanol fuel, leaving only 1 paragraph and the {{main}}. It really should be enough. Shall I try and make a single paragraph in ethanol which would give enough information to warrant no further additions to that section? I merely put a mergefrom/to in the articles, because I don't feel confident editing ethanol fuel (not enough knowledge on these environmental issues etc.), but I did see a lot of overlap in ethanol. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll add an attempt to rewrite section on the talk-page of ethanol --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks good! --Rifleman 82 20:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethanol as a fuel

   Suggest starting sub-section for E85.  Also mention of specific models of vehicles that can utilize it.  e.g. http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=26185

Hi all, I have merged the section ethanol#as a fuel into this article, I think it is more easy to keep an eye on all the points-of-views that this article seems to have when they are neatly in one place. There may be some double data now, and maybe some things have to be rephrased. I only had one problem, which also needs some explanation, I don't really understand the why. In the section in ethanol there was a statement:

Unfortunately, ethanol cannot be transported by pipeline due to its chemical volatility. It currently is transported by railways and barges.

I have added {{citation needed}}-templates into it, and placed it now under 'production', though I think a section 'transport' might be warranted in this article. My question is .. why can ethanol not be pumped through pipelines? We also pump methane through pipelines, so volatility cannot be a reason, can it? And the boiling point is almost 80 degrees C, so I can't imagine that there is a risk of boiling in the pipeline, not even in the Sahara. Curious to hear more about this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

just a small remark; ethanol and water will never phase separate, we would wish, that would make it a lot more easy to purify. So I'm afraid that I don't know what you mean by phase separation? CheersSikkema 20:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is one link, though not something I'd put on the main page, but will give you a clue to the problem. [5] Water tends to accumulate in pipelines, and ethanol will wash it out and phase separate. Ethanol can wash deposits out of the pipeline making it no longer useful as a fuel. In addition ethanol is corrosive to pipelines materials/seals. Not mentioned, but I understand there is also a problem that in multi-use pipes, ethanol will mix with the 'filler' that is used to separate two different fuels, and cause larger mixing. (I don't know enough about pipelines to this correct, but this is a outline of the problems) user:bluGill
Thanks for the explanation. Well, I would say, use a dedicated pipeline, I did not know that these pipelines were multiuse. Still it looks strange, if chemical engineers are capable of pumping corrosovie compounds like HF-gas through steel pipes, something like ethanol should not be a problem, even if it is wet or dry. But well, I'm not a chemical engineer, apparently these is some problem (although I think it is disputed, that part of the text got changed as well (unsourced to unsourced ..) when it was on the ethanol-page. Thanks again, I'll keep an eye on the page, maybe a good explanation turns up, or maybe it gets removed. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No E85 in California?

The NYT in August 2006 claims that California only has one E85 gas station selling to the public.69.87.204.65 14:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E85 Station in San Diego

I live about half a mile from one ethanol station here in San Diego. And I put it in my flex fuel vehicle occasionally --72.34.130.250 15:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information

I have deleted that claim: cellulose-ethanol production research is underway, but is, as yet, still uneconomical. More efficient would be te use the switchgrass as a direct burning fuel in power plants. Sikkema 20:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Sources section lists switchgrass as though it were being extensively used to produce ethanol. Research is ongoing [6] but no economically viable mass production plants exist at present to get ethanol from switchgrass or any other biomass. Political expediency has resulted in corn as the primary feedstock for ethanol production in America in spite of its poor fuel energy return of 1.34 [7]. Some misleading reports have been exposed by Rapier [8]. Has anyone considered the energy efficiency if oil is squeezed out of corn first to make biodiesel and then the sugar (converted from starch by enzymes) fermented to make ethanol? Sugar cane is 8 times better than corn [9], energy return wise, but requires a tropical climate. Sugar beets are used in France and may be more energy efficient (estimated energy return 1.9) than corn [10] in the U.S. but less cost effective since 2006 feed stock cost per gallon of ethanol produced is $1.58 for beet sugar but only $.40 for corn[11].

“…a crop such as switchgrass and processing it for less money than it costs to pump oil and refine it into gasoline.” This is POV nonsense. The cost of pumping oil and refining it into gasoline is very low. Legitimate reasons to encourage ethanol (and biodiesel) are concern for premature climate change and reduced dependence on foreign oil. Dan Pangburn 16:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cellulose research

Is there any facility to make ethanol using cellulose as the feedstock other than the one research plant in Canada? If not, than this article should be corrected to remove the implication that ongoing production capacity exists to make ethanol from cellulose. BTW corn stover is not a separate crop. Dan Pangburn 16:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Energy independence or not?

Several reports have indeed analysed all the factors that you point out. Indeed, the destillation of the ethanol mixture is a very energy intensive process. Surprisingly, The production of artificial fertilizers is also exceedingly energy intensive. All these factors taken into account have led to the conclusion that the net energy efficiency for the production is negative, which means that you have to put in more energy than you get back. The DOE for example, subscribes to this. Unfortunately.Sikkema 20:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


Finding a bargain available for purchase using your existing bank balance to fund it can be a good thing, but if you have no possibility of earning replacement funds to replenish that bank account, you had best measure the need for that bargain very carefully.

That means that the production of any item using the available supply of any resource should be considered with respect to the advisability of preserving its future availability for its best possible utility. That would be considered as good business to me.

How much real study has been given to the bottom-line use of natural gas to heat the needed processes to create ethanol from corn? Sure, the consumption of natural gas can be easily measured and its current cost calculated with very little effort. It is all available on the invoice that reaches the accounting desk every month. But, is that the only real cost that should be considered?

That does little to measure the effect on the current extra cost to the home owner for the increasing price of natural gas needed to keep that home warm enough to sustain life with enough funding left to then purchase human life sustaining internal fuel as well.

Is this factor being lost in the ROI of the ethanol project and promotion?

The situation in Brazil is a somewhat different matter in that the sugar cane used as the feedstock serves a dual purpose, as both the source of the basic needs of alcohol production and as the source of heat to fuel the process itself.

How much investment waste is being created by the design of plant processes restricted to the use of natural gas as the heating fuel of choice? How much thought is being given to the design of dual-fuel processing facilities?

Perhaps some of the researchers who have posted their thoughts here, each of whom have walked all around this factor would like to take a look at these thoughts and keep their implications in mind as they chip away at the issues involved with the energy independent portion of this problem?

Jerry Buerge, an old guy from Minnesota

We are in an early stage of the development of an ethanol fuel economy in the U.S. and it is primarily driven by government subsidy. In the long run price signals should drive the design of plants. Rising natural gas prices have already caused some new ethanol plant designs to be coal fired. A net carbon tax might result in different designs than the current direct per gallon subsidy. One hopes designers consider future fuel prices and make provision for future changes, but even if not one suspects change in fuel can be effected at less than the cost of a new plant.--agr 11:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism?

I think this should really have a "criticisms" section where the criticism scatterd thoughout the article would be centeralized.

Also I think this misrepresents Photosynthesis as magicly creating material. Photosynthesis uses existing material, materials found in the topsoil for growing plants, and using plants for fuel is using topsoil as fuel. Oh well

Not correct. Plants are made largely from carbon dioxide and water. If you grow a plant in a pot, the plant and pot together will gain weight. Man with two legs 12:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energy Balance

Can someone explain (or correct) this line in Energy Balance: "Petroleum gasoline only returns 0.8 units of energy for each unit put into it, while corn ethanol returns 1.3 units. Therefore, corn ethanol is more energy friendly than gasoline. Biomass ethanol is several times greater than corn ethanol, many times greater than gasoline."

How can the energy balance of gasoline be 0.8? This makes no sense. If you get less gasoline out than you put in, then there would be no market for oil (which is clearly not the case). Even if this number can be justified somehow, I question whether the numbers 0.8 for gasoline and 1.3 for ethanol could represent the same sorts of measures. Other sources I've read state that 1 barrel of oil invested returns between 3-10 barrels. (Yes, I've read the energy balance page and this only furthered my concerns.) --24.8.143.78 16:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


There is a website that nicely explains the net balance you talk about, but this quote may answer your question about the 1.3 from 1 unit of ethanol (from the site):

The production of ethanol is energy efficient as it yields almost 25 percent more energy than is used in growing the corn, harvesting it, and distilling it into ethanol.

I'm just a humble high-school student, so if you need more explaining, here's the website itself: http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/altfuel/eth_energy_bal.html 71.40.85.2 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Production (paragraph that was restored 10/7/06)

Paragraph was restored by Anlace with reason that important information had been deleted. Note that all of the info is included in the second paragraph following the restored one including adding a requested citation for the higher energy return of sugarcane compared to corn. Switchgrass is still in the future since there is not yet a production plant using switchgrass as feedstock. Dan Pangburn 05:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politics

I was just reading the ethanol fuel article, and I was surprised that there's no coverage about the role of ethanol in U.S. Politics --

[ed] (relevance)

The US ethanol industry is based in Iowa, a state which also hosts the first caucus for Presidential primaries, and is considered an important swing state for the general election itself. It leads one to presume for instance that we would not likely ever hear a presidential hopeful on the election trail call for a reduction on ethanol import tariffs, or equally, make any proposal to cut corn or ethanol related production subsidies.

[edit] Future developments

Persenoly, I think corn ethanol currently is viable. But while the short term remanes debateble. I realy have to disagre about the long term. Corn Ethanol will become a viable and energy eficant comodity in the future.

Currently it takes about 1 unit of petroleum to growe and process 1.5 units of corn ethanol but I’m pretty sure that with the

  1. Advent and promotion of cheaper non-petroleum fertilizers and herbicides.
  2. Increased corn acreage from new methods of farming.
  3. Farming equipment and machinery that runs on E85.
  4. Renewable sources of electricity for power.
  5. New more efficient and coast effective production processes and manufacturing methods being developed.
  6. The discovery of new and better Enzymes for chemical processing,

The creation of corn ethanol will become a much more energy efficant and coast effective process leaving a greatly reduced environmental footprint.

All these technologies are curently being developed and progressing, and corn ethanol will become a much more viable product, and a great boon to our economy, our environment and our society.
With all these technologies under development, in just 30 years it will take just 1 unit of petroleum to growe and process at least 5 units of corn ethanol.
Making corn ethanol in the furture a truley enviermentoly frendly and energy efficant alternitive to petrolium and gasolien, and turning corn ethanol into truley an energy sorce and not just an alternitive means of procecing or storing oil energy.

Besides it beets being a pupet to the oil comanies. --J intela 05:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, but you may not. Personally I would not like to bet the Earth on it. Man with two legs 13:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

By doing nothing at all (continuing to fuel up with gasoline), "Man with two legs" will be betting the Earth on petroleum, which most agree is a losing bet. Instead, we need not one but several alternative fuels, including ethanol/E85. If J is right, it makes a big positive difference. If he's wrong, likely it will make no difference. When you stand nothing to lose, go for broke!

[edit] Language (use of words like domestic / foreign etc.)

As wikipedia is an international dictionary, and should strive to noe use words which are imprecise and context dependent. It seems to me to be inappropriate to use words like domestic and foreign (referring without specifying to US domestic and US foreign) in an article about ethanol fuel in general. These passages should be changed to US and non-US, or something to that effect. And a sentence like "Only about 5% of the fossil energy required to produce bioethanol from corn is obtained from foreign oil" should be rewritten completely since it does not specify and US context at all. The discussion about US conditions in this article is highly relevant since it is one of the major ethanol producers and users, but it should be done in a more precise manner.

Superbjorn2000 23:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Bjorn

[edit] Removal of Propaganda

I removed the following paragraph due to its advertisement-like qualities, lack of sources, poor grammar, abyssmal punctuation and many typos:

"However, Corn Ethanol may verry well become a viable and energy eficant comodity in the future. With the advent and promotion of cheaper non-petroleum fertilizers and herbicides. Increased corn acreage and conservation from new techniques of farming. Farming equipment and machinery that runs on E85. Renewable sources of electricity for power and transport. The discovery of new and better Enzymes for chemical processing. New more efficient and coast effective production processes and manufacturing methods being developed with higher yields. The creation of Corn Ethanol could verry well become a much more energy efficant and coast effective process and leaving lesser environmental footprint. These technologies are under development and progressing, and could together easily increase the energy balance of corn Ethanol to 500%. [citation needed]" Kitarra 03:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it propaganda, and how do I know you’re not working for the oil company’s? --J intela 06:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Likely the above writing was the deceptive work of a petroleum industry executive, trying to make ethanol supporters look overly uneducated. Nice trick, but you're not fooling these highly educated ethanol supporters! (By the way, peterlum gassalean rox my warld and I thunked that fer a vary long thyme. We's shuld kepe fule econamy as loe as posable and sail sail sail $$$$$$$$$$$$balyuns!)

[edit] Some recent articles Feb/07 which might be worth to read

--Pinnecco 09:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crop Yield Data Questionable

While this data seems reasonable, it is attributed to globalpetroleumclub.com and they have essentially zero relevant information. There is a similar table to this one in the Biodiesel article. I've posted a question about that table there as well. Can anyone confirm these data? It seems reasonable to me, but the reference screams bogus to me. What do you think? --random 14:02, 28 February 2007 (CST)

"Ethanol consumption in an engine is approximately 34% higher than that of gasoline (the BTUs per gallon are 34% lower)" --- shouldn't the calculation be 1/0.66 to get that ethanol consumption is actually 51% higher than that of gasoline for the same energy? (And I myself wouldn't phrase it as "the BTUs per gallon are 34% lower".) 89.0.152.191

It really doesn't matter unless you own a FFV and fuel up with E85 to see the real world difference. My Tahoe goes from 15 mpg highway on gasoline to 13 mpg highway on E85 (near 15% lower, not 34%, ceratinly not 51%). That is quickly made up for in lower E85 fuel prices, Illinois state tax rebate of $450, and the other intangible, though valuable, benefits.

Nothing has been changed... anyone can provide information on the whereabouts of this particular table? www.globalpetroleumclub.com has no information on this.

I have tried to track down the numbers for this, and I can't find anything to prove it. While there are a few government sites that cite the numbers, I suspect they copied Wikipedia (the reports were by individuals, not official government reports). I am going to recomend that we delete all the lines from the table that are uncited, encouraging others to track down information in the future.SarcasticDwarf 13:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The figures in the table are highly suspect.

The miscanthus estimate of 1500 gallons per acre is approximately twice the estimate of 7300 liters per hectare (780 gallons per acre) published in Nature in December 2006 (Biofueling the future. Business feature. Nature 444: 669-676). The estimates for switchgrass and poplar are 40 and 60% higher, respectively, than the high-end estimates form Nature. Producing ethanol from any of these crops requires cellulosic ethanol technology, which is still experimental, so all estimates should be taken with a large grain of salt.

The claims that sweet potato, sweet sorghum and sugar beet can produce more ethanol per acre than sugar cane runs contrary to other published work.

Mother Earth News published a comparison chart of ethanol yields from energy crops back in 1980 (http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/meCh3.html#3_2 , scroll to the bottom of the page). We've probably learned something in the past quarter century, but I doubt we can extract 2-3 times more ethanol from sweet sorghum and sweet potato today than we could then.

Another estimate of ethanol yields is at http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/proceedings1990/v1-260.html. Again, these estimates are MUCH lower than those in the Petroleum Club table. I converted into US gallons per acre and got the following:

sweet potato: 622, Jerusalem artichoke: 446, sweet sorghum: 235, potato: 196, sugar beet: 175

I think the table should be removed. 17:13, 1 June 2007(MKB)

I am going to agree. If more than one figure from a table is shown to be wrong, then the entire table should be removed at least until things can be confirmed. SarcasticDwarf 00:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the data in the table with the estimates from "Nature", cited above. I have removed the "acres necessary to satisfy petroleum demand" columns because they were based on the erroneous assumption that no fuel is necessary to grow or process the crops. Mbomford 20:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Relevance?

A common cliché; "there's nuthin' new under the Sun", thou for the topic of producing Ethanol it's perhaps much closer to a truism.

-- "Ethanol from algae"

"In 2006-11-14, US Patent Office approved Patent 7135308, a process for the production of ethanol by harvesting (starch-accumulating filament-forming or colony-forming) algae to form a biomass, (initiating cellular decay of the biomass in a dark and anaerobic environment), (fermenting the biomass in the presence of a yeast), and the isolating the ethanol produced." --

Forgive my lack of verbosity, but "harvesting algae, letting it rot, then ferment, to produce ethanol (alcohol)" doesn't seem a terribly new invention to me. Things tend to rot in dark places without airflow seems a no-brainer. And as far as my scientific understanding goes, all fermentation producing alcohol requires yeast.

So what exactly is new here besides brewing up a batch of algae?

{ note: US Patent law requires an invention to be "novel (new), useful, and nonobvious" ..ammended to; "sufficiently useful and important" }

Does this "21st century discovery" patent carry any relevance outside of (a patently mad) US legal system?

~A Kidoo (from downunder)

From what I have heard, you can get a US patent on absolutely anything unless someone bothers to challenge it in court. It does not have to be new and it does not have to work. Man with two legs 12:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not Encyclopedia Worthy

The following lines should be removed, they are the original research (maybe not even that?) and opinions of whoever wrote them:

E-85 fuel distribution's fate rests mainly with the Big Oil interests, as they control the majority of fuel stations. Why would they want to substitute their own product for someone else's (farmers and investors)? They prefer to allow ethanol blended in small amounts with gasoline, for the longevity of their own product, and to denigrate the validity of E-85 fuel.

The whole paragraph is just silly to be quite honest.

24.15.1.153 16:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 2007 Edits

I made a number of edits to fix references, add fact tags, remove improper sources and unsourced statements as well as remove redundant info. --Chuck Sirloin 18:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I also reverted these changes because a) properly cited section were removed without reason and b) uncited information was added with no explanation. --Chuck Sirloin 13:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

One user, two new users and an anonymous IP continue to make these same changes. Please do not do so without discussing them here. --Chuck Sirloin 19:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm restoring the edids that 69.113.0.225 reverted --Envireprortector 17:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is incredeble biased against ethanol as a viable feul source, its almost like advertising for the oil companise! --J intela 17:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It just makes me sad though, how maney enviermentolist have fallen for the propoganda of the oil companies against ethanol! --J intela 17:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

and if it was really so bad than how come both polliticle parties wioldly suport it?--J intela 17:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is actually well balanced with both sides of the argument for and against ethanol. Just because you don't agree with some of the facts presented (with citations I might add) does not mean that you can just blank them. The three of you keep making the same non-productive edits over and over by blanking cited information and adding unsourced, horribly written information. Contributions are certainly welcome, but please spell check them and have verifiable sources for your facts or they will be removed. Many of the things that are adding are also redundant or in the wrong sections as well. Please stop making the exact same edits, its totally not productive. --Chuck Sirloin 17:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I have not made a single edit to this article in a week! --J intela 01:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did. At least know I know that you and 69.113.11.193 are the same person. --Chuck Sirloin 16:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time Magazine Trumpets Ethanol

So "TIME" thinks the number one way to reduce greenhouse gases is to burn ethanol in our cars rather than petroleum. Other than the fuel burned by the oil tanker in the Atlantic, how can this possibly help? Burning any organic compound results in CO2. It would be great if this article could make it clear how (or how not) switching to ethanol can help reduce CO2 emissions. ---Ransom (--69.106.64.201 05:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

- Look up the definition of "carbon neutral". The CO2 that's released when burning was captured from the atmosphere when the plant grew, so the NET emissions are zero. (74.220.68.194 05:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

I'm skeptical of the "carbon neutral" label being applied to ethanol. That's assuming the production process is free from reliance on fossil fuels, including farm machinery, pesticides, fertilizers, transportation, distilling, and refining. Eventually every part of the process could rely solely on ethanol, but that eventuality is probably a long way off. The "carbon neutral" label also ignores the potential loss of greenhouse sinks due to sequestration of land for agriculture, ie. deforestation, and different rates of soil carbon emission for agricultural vs. forested land. Another product of increased agriculture is Nitrous Oxide, a byproduct of fertilizers which, compared to CO2, is 296 times more potent as a greenhouse gas.--Dante456 00:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Lotus Exige 265E"

I have had my mention an copyright free picture deleted by an overjealous user. With over 23,000 article on google mentioning the bio-ethanol test car, I believe it should be mentione here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mariegriffiths (talk • contribs) 19:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

If this is the addition you are talking about, it was removed because you did not provide a citation (number of articles in google is not a citation either) and the sentence was just randomly added to a section. If you have a verifiable citation for its use as a test vehicle and would like to write a suitable paragraph about it, feel free to add it back! If you like, post a citation and I can write a paragraph or two with you. --Chuck Sirloin 20:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes Section

The notes section contains several articles promoting ethanol and a few articles about the science of ethanol. Although there are links with criticisms about ethanol scattered throughout the article, there are none of theses criticisms in the notes, and the content about the issues concerning ethanol are confusing in general. I propose two different sections consisting of arguments for and against using ethanol as an energy source. A section with sources concerning the politics of ethanol is needed as well. This article requires further research from scholarly sources. --Gwjones2 12:05, 12 April 2007

I agree. Go for it! --Chuck Sirloin 20:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Production Process

All of the claims in this section need citations. Everytime I add fact tags, 164.107.166.123/164.107.166.159 has removed them and added unsourced information about home brewing ethanol which has no place in this section. I am not going to edit war over this, but these are the types of things that keep creeping into this article and make it a mess. Please engage in discussion here before adding this type of information or reverting fact tags. --Chuck Sirloin 20:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I don't get it

Currently it take as much fual to make ethanol as comes out of it. If more is made carbon-emisions from the processes make it go up. And it still doesn't make enough fuel for car in U.S. i.e. we still need to import almost as much regular oil. Everyone running for president wants more. WTF. plus making all the corn in the United states into ethanol will only meat 1/8 of the demand. And thats going up.

[edit] Too long page

I think this page is too long, it is hard to read in its current form and it should be sliced up to several shorter articles. The article 'Ethanol fuel' should focus on how ethanol works as fuel, and not on how it is fermented and distilled. I don't think I am qualified to do this edit, but it should be done. --84.3.195.60 02:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Agreed. SarcasticDwarf 18:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Removal of CO2 balance points by Ooga131booga

I will defer to the knowledge of other people on this, but have the majority of recent studies shown that overall, ethanol adds LESS CO2 to the atmosphere than gasoline during its entire lifetime? A study or two is not sufficient evidence (regardless of the source). In this case two different articles by the same author are cited as evidence. Again, I am not sure, that is why I did not just revert it. SarcasticDwarf 18:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism: Environment: Mexico

The part about corn prices increasing by 50% should be explained better or removed. Many people think this is actually a good thing, since it has been widely speculated that low corn prices are a major reason why Mexican farmers migrate north and into the U.S. illegally. --Toadaron 22:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)



[edit] The part people ignore about Brazilian Ethanol

Brazil is "energy independant".
Some politicians use this to imply that Brazil does not use oil. That couldn't be farther from the truth.
All it means is that they do not IMPORT Oil.

Brazil still uses Oil for over 85% of their fuel.
Brazil is the second largest Oil producing nation in Latin America, right behind Venezuela.
While Brazil produces roughly 302,000 barrels of ethanol per day.
It pales in comparison to the 2,100,000+ barrels of Oil produced every day

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Brazil/Oil.html


[edit] Brazil Leads production?

RFA shows the U.S. passing Brazil in 2005 [12]

Numbers may vary. :-) --hdante 16:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Unlikely. Brazilian ethanol production based on sugarcane is more efficient and 50% cheaper, according to the brazilian finance minister, who based his statements on Brazil's 30 years of research.
“Our costs are 50 per cent lower and the quality of the energy source is higher than the ethanol made from corn in America,” Brazil’s finance minister Guido Mantega said. “So we can have more co-operation with America if they open the possibility for more imports from Brazil of ethanol and other agricultural products.” read it here
--Pinnecco 09:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

The reference that begins "In 2005, United States gasoline consumption was ..." was removed as original research. When it was added back by revert, SillyBilly stated "those were facts, not original research". It is true that the reference includes citations to verifiable facts. However, it cites those facts in order to support a conclusion - namely that "A sustainable bio-ethanol program for the United States could require 1.5 billion acres." As stated in the reference, this is the conclusion of the editor and not of a verifiable external source. No matter how well researched or well argued the conclusion is, it still should not be included unless it can be attributed to a reliable external source. Quoting from Wikipedia:No_original_research

'"A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Ucanlookitup 03:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)'

Is this a reason to send the whole remark to /dev/null ? --hdante 16:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion it is. I choose an example to illustrate the point, but the entire reference is an original analysis to support a particular view that ethanol is not a viable replacement for oil. Ucanlookitup 17:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

http://www.sugre.info/tools.phtml?id=515# - not directly relevant

[edit] Ethanol as a fuel (section in ethanol)

The section 'as a fuel' in ethanol grows and grows, while I think it is more appropriate in this page (it really should just be a single-paragraph section with only the bare minimum and a {{main}}). I have added a mergeto/mergefrom to the section resp article. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Merged the stuff. I don't understand why some of the things keep getting rehashed. Advocacy?--Rifleman 82 11:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the move. That's why I advocated a move of all of the data to ethanol fuel, leaving only 1 paragraph and the {{main}}. It really should be enough. Shall I try and make a single paragraph in ethanol which would give enough information to warrant no further additions to that section? I merely put a mergefrom/to in the articles, because I don't feel confident editing ethanol fuel (not enough knowledge on these environmental issues etc.), but I did see a lot of overlap in ethanol. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll add an attempt to rewrite section on the talk-page of ethanol --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks good! --Rifleman 82 20:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethanol as a fuel

Hi all, I have merged the section ethanol#as a fuel into this article, I think it is more easy to keep an eye on all the points-of-views that this article seems to have when they are neatly in one place. There may be some double data now, and maybe some things have to be rephrased. I only had one problem, which also needs some explanation, I don't really understand the why. In the section in ethanol there was a statement:

Unfortunately, ethanol cannot be transported by pipeline due to its chemical volatility. It currently is transported by railways and barges.

I have added {{citation needed}}-templates into it, and placed it now under 'production', though I think a section 'transport' might be warranted in this article. My question is .. why can ethanol not be pumped through pipelines? We also pump methane through pipelines, so volatility cannot be a reason, can it? And the boiling point is almost 80 degrees C, so I can't imagine that there is a risk of boiling in the pipeline, not even in the Sahara. Curious to hear more about this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is one link, though not something I'd put on the main page, but will give you a clue to the problem. [17] Water tends to accumulate in pipelines, and ethanol will wash it out and phase separate. Ethanol can wash deposits out of the pipeline making it no longer useful as a fuel. In addition ethanol is corrosive to pipelines materials/seals. Not mentioned, but I understand there is also a problem that in multi-use pipes, ethanol will mix with the 'filler' that is used to separate two different fuels, and cause larger mixing. (I don't know enough about pipelines to this correct, but this is a outline of the problems) user:bluGill
Thanks for the explanation. Well, I would say, use a dedicated pipeline, I did not know that these pipelines were multiuse. Still it looks strange, if chemical engineers are capable of pumping corrosovie compounds like HF-gas through steel pipes, something like ethanol should not be a problem, even if it is wet or dry. But well, I'm not a chemical engineer, apparently these is some problem (although I think it is disputed, that part of the text got changed as well (unsourced to unsourced ..) when it was on the ethanol-page. Thanks again, I'll keep an eye on the page, maybe a good explanation turns up, or maybe it gets removed. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No E85 in California?

The NYT in August 2006 claims that California only has one E85 gas station selling to the public.69.87.204.65 14:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E85 Station in San Diego

I live about half a mile from one ethanol station here in San Diego. And I put it in my flex fuel vehicle occasionally --72.34.130.250 15:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information

The Sources section lists switchgrass as though it were being extensively used to produce ethanol. Research is ongoing [18] but no economically viable mass production plants exist at present to get ethanol from switchgrass or any other biomass. Political expediency has resulted in corn as the primary feedstock for ethanol production in America in spite of its poor fuel energy return of 1.34 [19]. Some misleading reports have been exposed by Rapier [20]. Has anyone considered the energy efficiency if oil is squeezed out of corn first to make biodiesel and then the sugar (converted from starch by enzymes) fermented to make ethanol? Sugar cane is 8 times better than corn [21], energy return wise, but requires a tropical climate. Sugar beets are used in France and may be more energy efficient (estimated energy return 1.9) than corn [22] in the U.S. but less cost effective since 2006 feed stock cost per gallon of ethanol produced is $1.58 for beet sugar but only $.40 for corn[23].

“…a crop such as switchgrass and processing it for less money than it costs to pump oil and refine it into gasoline.” This is POV nonsense. The cost of pumping oil and refining it into gasoline is very low. Legitimate reasons to encourage ethanol (and biodiesel) are concern for premature climate change and reduced dependence on foreign oil. Dan Pangburn 16:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cellulose research

Is there any facility to make ethanol using cellulose as the feedstock other than the one research plant in Canada? If not, than this article should be corrected to remove the implication that ongoing production capacity exists to make ethanol from cellulose. BTW corn stover is not a separate crop. Dan Pangburn 16:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Energy independence or not?

Finding a bargain available for purchase using your existing bank balance to fund it can be a good thing, but if you have no possibility of earning replacement funds to replenish that bank account, you had best measure the need for that bargain very carefully.

That means that the production of any item using the available supply of any resource should be considered with respect to the advisability of preserving its future availability for its best possible utility. That would be considered as good business to me.

How much real study has been given to the bottom-line use of natural gas to heat the needed processes to create ethanol from corn? Sure, the consumption of natural gas can be easily measured and its current cost calculated with very little effort. It is all available on the invoice that reaches the accounting desk every month. But, is that the only real cost that should be considered?

That does little to measure the effect on the current extra cost to the home owner for the increasing price of natural gas needed to keep that home warm enough to sustain life with enough funding left to then purchase human life sustaining internal fuel as well.

Is this factor being lost in the ROI of the ethanol project and promotion?

The situation in Brazil is a somewhat different matter in that the sugar cane used as the feedstock serves a dual purpose, as both the source of the basic needs of alcohol production and as the source of heat to fuel the process itself.

How much investment waste is being created by the design of plant processes restricted to the use of natural gas as the heating fuel of choice? How much thought is being given to the design of dual-fuel processing facilities?

Perhaps some of the researchers who have posted their thoughts here, each of whom have walked all around this factor would like to take a look at these thoughts and keep their implications in mind as they chip away at the issues involved with the energy independent portion of this problem?

Jerry Buerge, an old guy from Minnesota

We are in an early stage of the development of an ethanol fuel economy in the U.S. and it is primarily driven by government subsidy. In the long run price signals should drive the design of plants. Rising natural gas prices have already caused some new ethanol plant designs to be coal fired. A net carbon tax might result in different designs than the current direct per gallon subsidy. One hopes designers consider future fuel prices and make provision for future changes, but even if not one suspects change in fuel can be effected at less than the cost of a new plant.--agr 11:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism?

I think this should really have a "criticisms" section where the criticism scatterd thoughout the article would be centeralized.

Also I think this misrepresents Photosynthesis as magicly creating material. Photosynthesis uses existing material, materials found in the topsoil for growing plants, and using plants for fuel is using topsoil as fuel. Oh well

Not correct. Plants are made largely from carbon dioxide and water. If you grow a plant in a pot, the plant and pot together will gain weight. Man with two legs 12:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energy Balance

Can someone explain (or correct) this line in Energy Balance: "Petroleum gasoline only returns 0.8 units of energy for each unit put into it, while corn ethanol returns 1.3 units. Therefore, corn ethanol is more energy friendly than gasoline. Biomass ethanol is several times greater than corn ethanol, many times greater than gasoline."

How can the energy balance of gasoline be 0.8? This makes no sense. If you get less gasoline out than you put in, then there would be no market for oil (which is clearly not the case). Even if this number can be justified somehow, I question whether the numbers 0.8 for gasoline and 1.3 for ethanol could represent the same sorts of measures. Other sources I've read state that 1 barrel of oil invested returns between 3-10 barrels. (Yes, I've read the energy balance page and this only furthered my concerns.) --24.8.143.78 16:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


There is a website that nicely explains the net balance you talk about, but this quote may answer your question about the 1.3 from 1 unit of ethanol (from the site):

The production of ethanol is energy efficient as it yields almost 25 percent more energy than is used in growing the corn, harvesting it, and distilling it into ethanol.

I'm just a humble high-school student, so if you need more explaining, here's the website itself: http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/altfuel/eth_energy_bal.html 71.40.85.2 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Production (paragraph that was restored 10/7/06)

Paragraph was restored by Anlace with reason that important information had been deleted. Note that all of the info is included in the second paragraph following the restored one including adding a requested citation for the higher energy return of sugarcane compared to corn. Switchgrass is still in the future since there is not yet a production plant using switchgrass as feedstock. Dan Pangburn 05:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politics

I was just reading the ethanol fuel article, and I was surprised that there's no coverage about the role of ethanol in U.S. Politics --

[ed] (relevance)

The US ethanol industry is based in Iowa, a state which also hosts the first caucus for Presidential primaries, and is considered an important swing state for the general election itself. It leads one to presume for instance that we would not likely ever hear a presidential hopeful on the election trail call for a reduction on ethanol import tariffs, or equally, make any proposal to cut corn or ethanol related production subsidies.

[edit] Future developments

Persenoly, I think corn ethanol currently is viable. But while the short term remanes debateble. I realy have to disagre about the long term. Corn Ethanol will become a viable and energy eficant comodity in the future.

Currently it takes about 1 unit of petroleum to growe and process 1.5 units of corn ethanol but I’m pretty sure that with the

  1. Advent and promotion of cheaper non-petroleum fertilizers and herbicides.
  2. Increased corn acreage from new methods of farming.
  3. Farming equipment and machinery that runs on E85.
  4. Renewable sources of electricity for power.
  5. New more efficient and coast effective production processes and manufacturing methods being developed.
  6. The discovery of new and better Enzymes for chemical processing,

The creation of corn ethanol will become a much more energy efficant and coast effective process leaving a greatly reduced environmental footprint.

All these technologies are curently being developed and progressing, and corn ethanol will become a much more viable product, and a great boon to our economy, our environment and our society.
With all these technologies under development, in just 30 years it will take just 1 unit of petroleum to growe and process at least 5 units of corn ethanol.
Making corn ethanol in the furture a truley enviermentoly frendly and energy efficant alternitive to petrolium and gasolien, and turning corn ethanol into truley an energy sorce and not just an alternitive means of procecing or storing oil energy.

Besides it beets being a pupet to the oil comanies. --J intela 05:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, but you may not. Personally I would not like to bet the Earth on it. Man with two legs 13:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

By doing nothing at all (continuing to fuel up with gasoline), "Man with two legs" will be betting the Earth on petroleum, which most agree is a losing bet. Instead, we need not one but several alternative fuels, including ethanol/E85. If J is right, it makes a big positive difference. If he's wrong, likely it will make no difference. When you stand nothing to lose, go for broke!

[edit] Language (use of words like domestic / foreign etc.)

As wikipedia is an international dictionary, and should strive to noe use words which are imprecise and context dependent. It seems to me to be inappropriate to use words like domestic and foreign (referring without specifying to US domestic and US foreign) in an article about ethanol fuel in general. These passages should be changed to US and non-US, or something to that effect. And a sentence like "Only about 5% of the fossil energy required to produce bioethanol from corn is obtained from foreign oil" should be rewritten completely since it does not specify and US context at all. The discussion about US conditions in this article is highly relevant since it is one of the major ethanol producers and users, but it should be done in a more precise manner.

Superbjorn2000 23:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Bjorn

[edit] Legal Concerns claim bogus

The claim that "in Hungary ethanol is illegal to use as fuel" is totally bogus. As a matter of fact the government has a program to buy up grain for ethanol production (mainly to support grain prices and subsidize farmers). The legal reference purportedly supporting the claim that ethanol fuel is illegal in Hungary points to the text of a law on excise taxes. Ironically the only mention of ethanol fuel is in a passage that makes it tax-exempt. Unless there are serious objections, I will remove this section from the article.

Malatinszky 14:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Land use/ POV tag

There is too much here about "disturbing challenges". Even one of the refs cited says:

"Brazil has 440m hectares of land for agriculture. Sugar cane cultivation uses only 1% of that. Soya bean uses only 4% and cattle raising 29%. So the issue is not land, and it's not even about the rainforest because the Amazon is not a good area for sugar cane production..."[24]

And I would have thought that things would be even more favourable for cellulosic ethanol production, which is on the horizon.

So I'm adding a POV tag. -- Johnfos 07:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Have now revised section and removed the POV tag. -- Johnfos 05:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the short notice. I would have posted a POV tag in advance of this revision, but I haven't yet found instructions for doing so.
In any case, the statement: "...cellulosic ethanol can be produced from any plant material, there would be no conflict between the need for food and the need for fuel" is simply incorrect. As long as land and agriculture are being used for products other than food, there will most certainly be a "conflict". Regardless of any sort of "bias", this fact seems fairly self-evident.
I also edited the discussion about the cellulose production process, as the reading of it seemed a bit clumsy to me. I hope I didn't change any essential content or meaning. If I did, I hope you will correct my mistakes.
Finally, I added some breaking news about the "food versus fuel" debate from the Wall Street Journal. Seems Pizza Hut and Jack-in-the-Box have found yet another excuse for gouging consumers, and the name for their pain is "ethanol". David Kendall 20:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
More breaking news on crop shortages, and increasing food prices, along with some less significant editsDavid Kendall 23:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
With regard to your comment about "Breaking news", I think you need to be aware that Wikipedia is not a News Service. You're obviously intent on pushing a particular point of view, and this flies in the face of WP:NPOV -- Johnfos 07:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday, it was "breaking news", and described as such on this talk page. Today and tomorrow, however, it is historical fact, and therefore documented as such in the actual article, including month and year of occurance. David Kendall 18:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding POV tag

The science of Economics is generally defined as the study of scarcity management. Absent scarcity and alternative uses of available resources, there is no economic problem. As such, the subject of economics involves the study of choices as they are affected by incentives and resources.[1] Since land and agriculture have historically served the world as utilities for the production of food, many believe the alternative use of agricultural resources for production of ethanol fuel imposes an artificial scarcity of food on a global scale.[2] [3] [4] [5]

It was when I read this paragraph that I realised a POV tag would need to be added to this article. Apart from giving us a lesson in basic economics, David Kendall is clearly intent of pushing a POV, as illustrated by the four citations added to this point in the text. The principle of Neutral Point of View requires that we describe competing views without endorsing any one in particular. This is clearly not happening here, or elsewhere as discussed in the section above.

So I'm adding a POV tag to the article. -- Johnfos 07:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Land and food scarcity issues, artificially imposed by ethanol fuel production, are conspicuously ommited from this article. Recent inclusion of them is intended to provide appropriate representation of these problems along with all the other information regarding ethanol fuel. "Artificial scarcity" is not a commonly understood term; hence the brief economics lesson -- in the "Economics" section -- assuming "education" is one of the primary functions of an encyclopedia. Several citations were included here, as references are a Wikipedia requirement, and so this "view" wouldn't appear to be an isolated "opinion". David Kendall 18:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

Another section which is unbalanced is the Technology--problems section. The difficulty is that it makes no mention of opportunities or benefits, yet these have been discussed in various sources.[25] -- Johnfos 01:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternatives

Thankfully someone has already removed the para on Air Cars. Certainly I felt it didn't have a place here. -- Johnfos 04:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)