VIDEO: Running Out of Fuel in Wyoming

I did this trip last year with my own funds and without a lot of big firms and PR and loaner cars. I converted my 1957 caddy to run on E-85 (and only E-85). I left DC to SD, CA and used a marine grade tank with a vent to the outside. I did not trust the old 57 tank and what E-85 could do to it (fuel filter problems and crud).

I was the first car to go across America using only E-85, before it was so popular this year. This trip was done in the summer of 2005 and I went from coast-to-coast both ways (7,800 miles) and made it (google first car across America on ethanol). It did make CNN, Fox, some major papers, but my message was that we need to transition to a an energy mix that makes sense in a short period of time. First get off imported oil, then find better ways of making E-85 (besides corn, which is limited, uses natural gas to make it, and is a food source).

But, we must understand that we have to start somewhere and go through a process to bridge to the future. This effort was a good PR trip, but I think more logistics were needed. I had only one car and not a bunch of tanks in the trunk. When I did the trip in 05, there were less E-85 stations. It was not easy, planning is everything.

Ethanol Across America and the Clean Fuels Development Coalition (same thing) helped with some PR (they are a very small two man shop in DC, but connected). I had meetings on the Hill when I returned and mentioned the lack of stations in certian areas. That is why my second car is a hybrid for city traffic on the East Coast.

I give these group credit for all the PR and the message, but we cannot stop oil now, we have to wean off of it as the infrastructure changes for new fuels and people get rid of their old cars.

It was just me and a mechanic friend in his shop at his home to do all of this work, since we had to think of how to rebuild a 57 not to just get across America, but alos use E-85.

I still will never forget the smell of pumping E-85 into my car in the morning, it smelled like Victory (to quote a movie).

Christopher W. Lapp, Ph.D., M.B.A., S.R.O.
LappCW@aol.com
I dedicated the trip to my Father (Dr. R. E. Lapp, 1917-2004), one of the pioneers of the atomic age and opponent of nuclear weapons testing and the arms race of the Cold War.

Two cheers for R-Squared's efforts – one cheer for his own dedication to our nation's energy challenges and one for his work to promote science education in this country. I cannot, however, muster up a third cheer for his post on the Daschle-Khosla conversation with our road trippers.

I noted with interest that Sebastian Mallaby takes some of R-Squared's concerns head on in this morning's Washington Post. Here's a shot at his other concerns.

First, check out the well to wheels chart by NRDC to compare carbon savings for various transportation fuel options:

click for larger image

They are substantial – contrary to R-Squared's assertion. (This image is from a presentation Dan Lashof of NRDC made in May. Check here to read more.)

Second, where are we going to get the ethanol? The corngrowners recently estimated that based on increasing yields they can get corn for 15 billion gallons of ethanol by crop year 2015-2016. That will cover the ethanol blend market – and do so with some good savings if it is all produced with the closed loop that we all agree is going to do great things. The challenge is to bring cellulosic ethanol to commericialization. To do that we need to generate the E-85 market over and above this 15 billion gallon blend market.

The other pieces needed to solve the energy puzzle are conservation and efficiency, two issues that R-Squared would certainly agree with. Remember that today we consume about 150 billion gallons of gas a year. If nothing changes, NRDC calculates we will consume 289 billion gallons a year by 2050. Talk about oil addiction – and take a look at a recent proposal from Tom Daschle and Vinod Khosla to promote vehicles that run on alternative fuels, be they FFVs or hybrids or plug-in hybrids, to beat that addiction.

Third, R-Squared can't be against expanding the availability, marketing and distribution, and thereby decreasing the price, of E-85 and then turn around and use high price as a reason to avoid expanding production. That would be tautological (even more so if he used the average price of the spot market for ethanol even though upwards of 80% of contracts for ethanol are long-term fixed – which he did).

Note, as well, that had our road trippers made it a bit farther north they could have hit the BP on 6th Street in Aberdeen, SD where you can E-85 at $1.79 a gallon, an example of the kind of price differential you can get with homegrown product.

I have to add here, too, that while I appreciated his math on government support for ethanol, I would love to see an apples-to-apples comparison on government support for ethanol versus petroleum. A recent speech by Senator Biden on energy security raises some interesting questions about what should count as a subsidy to the oil industry.

I anticipate – and look forward to – an ongoing discussion with R-Squared.

I also look forward to an exchange of ideas. I suspect we are both after the same goal, but differ in how we should get there. I just don't think E85 is the way to do it, and I think betting the farm on the success of E85 is poor energy policy. I will address the specific claims in your post tomorrow, as I have already written a ton today and I am a bit tired. In the meantime, you can check out the essay I just posted debunking some of Khosla's claims:

Vinod Khosla Debunked

The more I listen to the guy, the more I am reminded of Ross Perot. Regarding their New York Times editorial, I addressed it in a previous blog essay:

Daschle and Khosla Ethanol Propaganda

More tomorrow.

RR

OK, I have a bit more time and am rested. I would like to continue this exchange as well, because I think an open exchange of ideas is the key to pursuing good energy policy. Might I make a suggestion, though? I don’t think too many people will see the exchange here. If you have a better place to host it where more people might see it, then the exchange will be of greater value.

Now, on to your specific points. Regarding the greenhouse gas reduction, you wrote:

They are substantial – contrary to R-Squared's assertion.

Look at the chart you posted. Ethanol, as we make it today, and gasoline are bracketed on either side of yellow bar in the middle (which is coal-ethanol). The difference between the two is in no way substantial. The substantial reduction would come if cellulosic actually proves viable on a large scale. But that’s my problem with this debate. All of the rosy projections are being based on cellulosic ethanol delivering on its promises, but cellulosic is still essentially a research project even though it has been researched for over 30 years.

Finally, if the reduction is substantial, why did Vinod Khosla say it wasn’t? As I documented from his video presentation, he said “Unlike here, ethanol in Brazil has a substantial greenhouse gas reduction”. Ethanol advocate Daniel Kammen said much the same thing in a recent interview on 60 Minutes. When asked about the potential for the reduction of carbon emissions from ethanol as we make it today, he said the reduction was “modest”. So, I stand by my assertion. The reduction is not substantial. The 4 billion gallons of ethanol we make in the U.S. today results in very little greenhouse gas reductions. In fact, most of the studies showing a reduction are based on the energy balances of the USDA, which admittedly omitted some inputs into the process. The “substantial” reduction comes from ethanol we have yet to produce.

The corngrowners recently estimated that based on increasing yields they can get corn for 15 billion gallons of ethanol by crop year 2015-2016.

There are multiple issues here to address. First, 15 billion gallons is still less than 10% of our gasoline demand. So again, why the push for E85? You could roll out E10 nationally, and not have the problems of putting in new pumps. You simply can’t make enough E85 to justify the pumps. You build up the capacity, and as you do, you put in pumps if the capacity warrants it.

Second, perhaps the corn growers can get the corn up to 15 billion gallons, but how many people are going to starve in 3rd world countries as a result? How many poor Americans are going to find their food budgets stretched because this is the path we went down, instead of a very aggressive conservation program? Perhaps you saw these recent news stories:

Heatwaves and biofuel demand in Europe and US to fuel bread, pasta and beer price rises

The combination of heatwaves in Europe and the US, low global grain stocks and an increase in production of biofuels has seen wheat prices rise to 10-year highs and may lead to big increases in the cost of bread and pasta. Corn and barley prices are also likely to rise, which may push up the cost of beer and breakfast cereals.

And:

Grain Drain

Brace yourself for crises at the cash register. Major price hikes for food are coming, as Peak Grains join the lineup of life-changing events such as Peak Oil and Peak Water. Unless this year's harvest is unexpectedly different from six out of the last seven, the world's ever-decreasing number of farmers will not produce enough staple grains to feed its ever-increasing number of people.

Even modest price changes can have a big wallop this time, too, especially in a world that's already suffering from crisis overload. For a third of the world's people who subsist on less than $2 a day, even a few pennies increase in food prices can make a life-and-death difference.

There will be an echo of that desperation in wealthy North America, where about 10 per cent of the population – mostly single-parent families and immigrants – faces some form of food insecurity. If looming food shortages make it onto the radar of government officials charged with safeguarding public health, a raft of new policy issues will need to be addressed.

A big question mark has to be put next to ethanol fuels, except those made from crop wastes. Food sovereignty – the right of a people to set their own food policies – emerges as a precondition of food security, and should put the world free trade agenda on hold.

For me, it is immoral to ramp up corn to fuel, considering these consequences. And it is irresponsible to play the bait and switch and say “cellulosic is right around the corner”. What’s going to happen is that we will continue to ramp up corn ethanol, and future plants are likely to turn to coal as a cheaper fuel for their plants. Ethanol plants like E3 Biofuels probably won’t take hold, because their capital costs are probably going to be too high.

The other pieces needed to solve the energy puzzle are conservation and efficiency, two issues that R-Squared would certainly agree with. Remember that today we consume about 150 billion gallons of gas a year.

I am fully on board with kicking the oil habit. If we don’t kick it, it’s going to kick us. But I have come to the conclusion that the only way biofuels will allow us to kick the oil habit is by aggressively promoting conservation. More on that below.

Third, R-Squared can't be against expanding the availability, marketing and distribution, and thereby decreasing the price, of E-85 and then turn around and use high price as a reason to avoid expanding production. That would be tautological (even more so if he used the average price of the spot market for ethanol even though upwards of 80% of contracts for ethanol are long-term fixed – which he did).

I am not against expanding the availability of E85. What I am against is choosing a technology winner, and then mandated that this is the way it will be done. That is exactly what is taking place here. As of now, sufficient ethanol to justify E85 pumps can’t be produced. As ethanol production increases, you then expand the pumps. There is not a glut of ethanol. If there was, you could justify installing a bunch of pumps. And nothing is stopping Mr. Khosla, with his billions, from building his own E85 stations.

Finally, I used the average spot price for ethanol, but I compared it to the spot for gasoline. Apples and apples, and gives a true price comparison. Most gasoline contracts are also long-term fixed.

Note, as well, that had our road trippers made it a bit farther north they could have hit the BP on 6th Street in Aberdeen, SD where you can E-85 at $1.79 a gallon, an example of the kind of price differential you can get with homegrown product.

Or, instead of picking one outlier, we could look at the rest of the country. Many places have E85 priced higher than regular gasoline, even though it has less energy. This is an example of the kind of price differential you can get with mandated products.

I have to add here, too, that while I appreciated his math on government support for ethanol, I would love to see an apples-to-apples comparison on government support for ethanol versus petroleum. A recent speech by Senator Biden on energy security raises some interesting questions about what should count as a subsidy to the oil industry.

It is impossible to do such comparisons, because nobody can agree on what constitutes an indirect subsidy. I presume most would agree that the war in Afghanistan is not about oil. OK, how about the war in Iraq? How much do you attribute to oil, and how much to Bush’s misguided belief that there were WMDs? Regarding ethanol, can we count as subsidy the higher food prices for everyone? How about topsoil erosion? What’s that worth? What is the worth of the pesticides and herbicides ending up in our waterways? From The Green Bullet:

Corn farming is rough on the environment. Soil erosion due to wind and water is rampant. Fertilizer and pesticide runoffs produce algae blooms that result in “dead zones,” including one in the Gulf of Mexico that is so polluted it cannot support aquatic life.

The point is, we can add up indirect costs forever. But if you want to look at direct subsidies, ethanol is subsidized somewhere in the neighborhood of $7 per gallon of gasoline that it displaces. Along with that, we get all of the negative impacts described above. If ethanol actually had all of the advantages that proponents state, it would not require all of these subsidies and mandates in order to compete. The subsidies are hiding the inefficiency of the process.

There is a better way. We must substantially increase taxes on fossil fuels. At the same time, we can decrease income tax rates for poor Americans. Processes with poor energy efficiency will be discouraged, and processes like E3 Biofuels will be encouraged. Conservation would be valued. Cellulosic ethanol would then have an economic advantage, because of the better EROI. In this way, we tilt the market toward biofuels, without mandating something that we can’t possibly achieve.

Cheers,

Robert Rapier

If we are only going to be able to produce enough E85 to substitute for 10% of our current gasoline usage, why not simply mandate that all gasoline fuels be replaced with E10? We will be cutting the same amount of oil consumption - 10% - and, if I understand correctly, we can implement this immediately as all modern automobile engines will operate on E10 without further modification.

More to follow.

Someone can't do math. That is not a closed loop. Even if we allow sunlight as 'permitted' outside interference, it is still a long way off a closed loop.

Their marketing materials don't provide enough information for me to do the math, but "up to 40%" means 0 <= x < 0.4 where x= feedlot. Now, I'm a little fuzzy on this topic, but I wasn't aware there was a way to turn Ethanol manufacturing waste directly into food. Near as I can tell, they omitted 5 key features from their little chart.
1. Manure collection (extruder to ingestor) and distribution (motor, distributor in Living Systems models) to Digester (called a converter in Living Systems) = pick up and drop off manure
2. Same as #1, but moving the 'digested' manure to the Ethanol plant (producer subsystem)
3. Ethanol extruder and distributor
4. Ethanol plant wastes sent to ??? (Assuming farms)
5. Farms(?) to Cows, same as #1.

Not mentioned is what happens to the "Digestor" wastes if any exist.

I mention all of these because in many cases the transportation method is a diesel operated semi truck. If the semi trucks run on Ethanol, then there is something closer to a closed loop. If the *only* fertilizer is from the Ethanol plant, and the tractors run on Ethanol from the plant then we *almost* have a closed loop.

To satisfy the sunlight requirement, the dairy farm, digestor, ethanol plant and feed farm would need to use solar or wind for all of their power needs. To be even moderately sustainable, all of the systems would need to be produced using sustainable materials, meaning recyclable batteries for the solar systems. (Lithium ion or mechanical methods)

To be a *truly* closed loop, ignoring infrastructure, the people and cows would all need to get their food requirements from the same system as well.

The two biggest flaws are "up to 40%" and a direct arrow from ethanol plant to cows. Not a closed loop. I have been designing a super efficient closed loop system (excluding most infrastructure), so I understand the challenges that are faced.
Ian with SCRI Foundation
http://sustainametric.blogspot.com/