"As far as I'm concerned, they may as well put water in the gas," Atkeson said.

When Atkeson first purchased his car, which uses gasoline and then electric power harnessed from the car's brake system to increase fuel mileage, he said he routinely got in excess of 50 miles per gallon. Recently he said his fuel economy has dropped to approximately 40 mpg on the highway and 35 mpg in the city.

"It just doesn't burn the same. I know Honda does not recommend burning that type of fuel in their vehicles, simply because they know it's going to drop the gas mileage. It doesn't combust the same," Guadagnino said.

How much energy?

Most automobiles and trucks in the United States are able to run on E10 fuel, but the fuel contains less energy than gasoline. According to the EIA, a gallon of gasoline has approximately 122,169 British thermal units of energy, compared with 83,333 Btu per gallon of ethanol.

Using EIA numbers, an approximate gallon of E10 gasoline should have about 118,285 Btu, 3.2 percent less than regular unleaded gasoline. How that affects fuel mileage in various model cars is disputed by proponents and opponents of ethanol production and consumers of the product.

According to the Renewable Fuels Association, the trade association for the U.S. ethanol industry, fuel injected cars may experience a decrease of approximately 2 percent in fuel economy using E10.

Here's an ethical question: in a world where people starve, does it make sense to run cars on food? In 2005, ethanol plants consumed 14 percent of the nation's corn crop. Producing seven times as much fuel, under Bush's proposed mandate, would put the proportion close to 100 percent.

....it didn't take him long to decide that cellulosic ethanol was the Next Big Thing.

It was a simple question of math. In 2005, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act, which required 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels—mostly ethanol—to be blended into gasoline per year by 2012. Then, in his State of the Union Address this year, President Bush called for increasing that mandate to 35 bil­lion gallons by 2017, both to help the environment and to reduce America's reliance on foreign imports of fossil fuels. The ethanol mandate advocated by the president represents one-fourth of the gasoline consumed last year in the United States.

...Few governments are willing to live and let live when it comes to biofuels. Ethanol currently benefits not just from the multibillion-gallon man­date, but also from a 51-cent-per-gallon-of-ethanol tax credit to blenders that mix the stuff with gaso­line. At the same time, a tariff on imported ethanol reduces foreign competition.

Celunol isn't the only business chasing the cel­lulosic dream. John Howe, the company's vice president for public affairs, jokes that when he looks out his window in Cambridge, he can see six other firms working on the same problem. Most are fueled by a gusher of venture capital flowing as mightily as Heywood hoped his well would. In 2005, accord­ing to the National Venture Capital Association, venture capitalists (VCs) poured $195 million into alternative energy companies. In 2006, that figure reached $727 million. Cleantech Venture Network, an arm of the Cleantech Group (a consortium of companies that invest in green technologies) cal­culates that biofuel investments rose sevenfold from 2005 to 2006 (see chart on page 93).

Alexander Farrell, an energy expert who also teaches at Berkeley, tried to calm the debate with a January 2006 article in Science magazine that aggregated six different studies, including Pimentel's and Patzek's. Farrell's team found that, on the whole, corn ethanol had a positive energy balance, though "the average hides a lot," he said in an interview. "Some ethanol has a bigger benefit, and some a negative benefit—worse than gasoline." As for greenhouse gases, "the average is not terri­bly positive. There are technologies and plants today that perform well, but no one has an incentive for good performance."

At the pump, ethanol faces another big problem: it is less powerful than gasoline in today's engines. New flex-fuel vehicles that can run on 85 percent ethanol blends (E85) show decent fuel efficiency, and if an engine is built to take complete advan­tage of ethanol, the biofuel's high octane levels could give it some advantages over gasoline. But ethanol-optimized vehicles are as rare as ethanol service stations. That means that in the near future, ethanol, since it gets fewer miles per gallon in con­ventional cars, needs to be cheaper per gallon than gasoline to compete. Achieving that low price is tough because of America's limited corn supply. In 2005, ethanol plants consumed 14 percent of the nation's corn crop. Without efficiency gains or mas­sive imports, producing seven times as much fuel, under Bush's proposed mandate, would put the pro­portion of the crop close to 100 percent.

But ethanol policy isn't necessarily about prac­ticality. It's about politics, personified in another presence on the RFA's board: Martin Lyons, senior vice president for ethanol sales and marketing at Archer Daniels Midland Company.

What is clear is that, despite its environmental and efficiency woes, corn ethanol has been the lucky beneficiary of an American political quirk, first pointed out by economist Bruce Yandle in a famous 1983 article in the journal Regulation. In the article, Yandle, now dean emeritus of the Clemson College of Business and Behavioral Sciences, recounted that, while he worked at the Federal Trade Commission, he noticed a funny thing about regulations that captured the public's imagination and managed to endure. These regulations evolved not because of rational cost-benefit analysis, Yandle wrote, but because of odd alliances between what he called "Bootleggers and Baptists."

Yandle suggested that most regulations could be viewed in this light. Groups with moral motives provide cover for those who benefit eco­nomically (groups that, unlike bootleggers, typically operate within the law), even if the two sides don't have much else in common. So far, this dynamic has propelled etha­nol from obscurity to the center of American energy policy.

Read full here

 Wed, 18 Apr 2007 (Article) DOI: Linked here

The future is not now for biomass ethanol industry. The logistics of collecting and storing a million tons of corn stubble each year for an ethanol refinery are mind-numbing.

"It would take 67,000 semitrailer loads to haul the baled stubble out of the field. That's 187 truckloads a day, or one every eight minutes. To complicate matters, the need for trucks, machinery and manpower would come during harvest, already the busiest time of the year on the farm. And that's where a massive federal initiative into cellulosic ethanol may find its biggest bottleneck - on the farm."

According to the article, a million tons would produce 80 million gallons of ethanol. This would be enough on a gross basis to displace 0.04% of our gasoline usage. So, if all the inputs were free, all we would need is 2,500 of these facilities, and we will have met all U.S. gasoline needs (but not diesel, fuel oil, or jet fuel). Ah, but we forgot about energy inputs. How many gallons of fossil fuels did it take to run all of those semi-trailer trucks to take the stubble to the plant? How much natural gas was required to distill off the ethanol? But we are told that these are "small problems." Easily resolved.

Read full here