Over on FYI: Ethanol Updates

We need ethanol stations in New York i have am Impapa that can use ethinal but there no stations nead Poughkeepsie N.Y.

I really like the idea of using ethanol, but not as a standalone technology. I think it would be best used with hybrid type technology, such as: the mild hybrid (Saturn Vue, Aura, Chevy Malibu), two mode hybrid (Chevy Tahoe, imported Prius), or the plugin hybrid vehicle (Chevy Volt).

Donna, Mary,

Well now that General Motors is rockin' and rollin' it seems that the media is looking for a new punching bag. They are looking for something to vilify and knock around for no reason other than to exercise their already overextended and overpowering jaw muscles to complement the heavy hand of their media counterparts. And that new whipping boy is corn based ethanol and the ethanol industry.

But let me tell you something, they are just as wrong about ethanol as they were about General Motors. Their misguided opinions and out of date statistics and facts are a rerun of what GM was going through for the last couple of years. I half expect another black tombstone issue of Forbes to be published this time with the face of ethanol on it. But just like I fought for GM I will fight the lies, myths, and old thinking that pervades and tarnishes the image of ethanol.

Unlike oil or gasoline, ethanol is a synthetic fuel that is in perpetual motion. Its inputs, process, and outputs are constantly changing, getting better, more cost effective, more economical and more efficient. The use of water in the process is variable to the point that the entire process has been accomplished using recycled water resulting in no additional H20 but the water used to grow the corn itself. Energy inputs are being reduced while more energy is being squeezed out of the process by using the cob which will be a big a part of ethanol's future as the kernel itself.

After closely following the ethanol breakthroughs everyday at ethanol-news.newslib.com it is just impossible to review all the advancements but the arguments by the other side are the same out of date argument running over and over again like a broken record and they concern

1. food

-ethanol causes shortages of food now that food has to compete.

Counterpoint: Bumper crops of corn are making their way to food stores and factories as we speak.

2. water

-its a water intensive process and the corn crop consumes lots of water.

Counterpoint: Food corn is grown to maximize taste, corn for ethanol can be bred to minimize water usage. Also the amount of water used in the process of making ethanol can be reduced to nothing by recycling water in the process, it's been done already and will be utilized in the future.

3. land use

-corn is taking away other crops from precious little farmland.

Counterpoint: The government has paid farmers to put land aside and leaves 30 million acres a year fallow so as to keep farm prices from collapsing.

4. environment

-that the process smells bad, uses too much resources, transportation problems etc. NIMBY-not in my backyard is taking over.

Counterpoint: The newest factories do not smell. Also ethanol factories often replace old factories in the rust belt. Does sticking a pipe 2 miles into the ocean and 1 mile under bedrock look better?

5. energy

-that the process of making ethanol from corn uses more energy than it creates - or it's darn there close.

Counterpoint: The process is becoming more efficient every year and the amount of net energy from ethanol will multiply as it has already been proven.

6. subsidies

-that ethanol would not exist, develop, or survive without subsidies.

Counterpoint: $40 is the magic number. If oil drops below that then ethanol would not be economical to develop. Well we are way past that.

7. economics

-Its more economical to just get the black stuff in shallow pools conveniently placed by good ole nature.

Counterpoint: Every year the economics of oil get worse as we must dig deeper, go farther, and design ever more elaborate to get it. While ethanol is the opposite its breakthroughs will only make it more economical every year.

8. tax

-that we pay for it twice, first at the pump and then with our taxes.

Counterpoint: $100 billion. The cost of fighting the wars and keeping the peace in the Middle East.

And that's just one conflict under a single administration.

9. efficiency

-that ethanol does not get as good gas mileage as oil.

Counterpoint: Engines were designed for oil not ethanol but if engines were designed for ethanol then ethanol can easily gain the advantage. Right now it is still secondary.

10. performance

-neither does it perform as well while we risk rust, corrosion, and cold weather that can freeze pure ethanol.

Counterpoint: Nascar debunked that myth, ethanol actually makes a car perform better.

Now GM listen to me. We can debunk each one of these myths. What we are going to do is dissect their argument and challenge each and every one of them. They are looking for holes in the ethanol picture and in the end they will not find it.

Now each of my arguments can trace their facts to articles I read from ethanol-news.newslib.com which is an amalgamation of every article written on ethanol locally and worldwide every single day. I am not going to look for every article, this is a blog not a Princeton thesis. At the same time the truth is even more miraculous than I have stated but in the interest of brevity, time, and only using memory I did collapse the arguments to only talking points that can be expanded in the future.

Anyway what you have is an outline of the simple arguments layed out by the anti-ethanol groups and the sound arguments that prove them wrong. Going forward we have to debunk each and every myth they lay out and fight them vigorously.

Not only is loosing the argument at stake, but we may loose the very transportation system with which we rely.

And don't think those sales are not going unnoticed.

Congratulations GM,

Market share up a full 1% in last 3 months in the US. Sales in Canada up 13%. Sales at Daewoo up 33%. You were rockin' and rollin' in China too also up in the 30 percentile.

Unbelievable numbers but wait. In the good ole US of A sales for mid-size crossovers up 320% over the year ago month. WOW. CTS up 75%, let's see BMW or Lexus pull those kinds of numbers. Overall Cadillac up 20%. Bob's baby the HHR up 70%. Cobalt and G5 up 81%.

What are yall taking over there let me get some. But wait that's not all.

CTS, Acadia, Enclave, and Outlook up, Malibu and Astra is on deck, and now the Hummer H3T is in the hole. 3rd quarter of next year.

Let me tell you something. My brother-in-law dragged me out the house the other night he wants me to go with him to test drive the Toyota Tundra. Now he's been threatening to make this purchase for a while. Now the Tundra was nice and he told me to get behind the wheel. That same very night GM broke the news and the H3T was official. Now he wants a pickup and the H3T is on his wish list but he may not want to wait and I was not sure how far along it was in the development process. But now I can give him a firm date and let him know that by the third quarter of next year his searching and waiting will be over.

I got back into my H3 and said "never" but here is what I liked about the Tundra. You know what got me the most. As I was looking at the beautiful interior and admiring the lights of the instument panel this popped out. The word "TOYOTA" was emblazoned atop the dash in gold. It was very small letters but front and center standing proudly over the center console to remind everyone that "Hay, Toyota did this!" I don't know I just like that detail and you aught to copy it. What was sweet about it was the letters were so tiny that it made you feel confident that these folks mind the details. Just the other day I was at the B-P-G dealership and on the Pontiac Torrent the GM logo was upside down.

In short- Details, details, details.

You can spend a billion on a new model but it's the littlest, tiniest, and most minute details that make all the difference.

Anyway happy belated Halloween - but those numbers aren't scary.

Edward Hayes said: "But let me tell you something, they are just as wrong about ethanol as they were about General Motors. Their misguided opinions and out of date statistics and facts are a rerun of what GM was going through for the last couple of years. I half expect another black tombstone issue of Forbes to be published this time with the face of ethanol on it."

Mr Hayes,

It certainly sounds as though you have drunk the Big Corn and Big Ethanol Kool-Ade.

There are so many misconceptions in your list of rebuttals, I don't even know where to begin, so I'll just say this:

There is no question we must find a way to stop using motor fuels made from fossilized biomass. It's not sustainable at the current rate. Only about 12% of the people in the world now own cars, and the other 88% want them. Can you imagine what the world would be like if the other 88% decided they want to drive GM Tahoes and Yukons? Obviously the demand for motorfuel would far, far exceed supply with the expected effect on the price of motor fuel.

So let's stipulate right now that we MUST find an alternative source of energy for personal transporation.

But, corn-based ethanol is not the answer. Corn ethanol has far too many adverse effects in terms of the resources used to make it, and adverse effects on the environment.

As I have said numerous times (so many I'm growing tired of saying it) corn-based ethanol is little more than recycled natural gas.

If corn farmers and ethanol plants couldn't use unrenewable fossil fuels to grow corn and make ethanol, there would be no corn ethanol. (And please don't cite the example of the Mead, Nebraska ethanol plant. That's an isolated example that is only possible because it's co-located with a 30,000 head CAFO. I don't know where you live, but 30,00 head CAFOs have their own environmental problems.)

Perhaps cellulosic ethanol will provide the breakthrough we need. Perhaps. We can hope so, but don't bank on it any time soon. And cellulosic ethanol plants will have their own environmental drawbacks.

Here's just one: To supply just one cellulosic ethanol plant for a year, it would take a volume of baled switch grass that would cover an area of 640 acres (one mile on a side) stacked 300 ft high. That means next to the ethanol plant, there would have to be a storage area one mile on a side, IF it was even possible to stack bales 300 ft high. I doubt bales can be stacked that high, so if we stack them to only 50 ft, the acreage for storage would go to six square miles. That's six square miles needed just to store the switchgrass for one ethanol plant.

The reason it has to be stored, is that switchgrass is an annual that can't be harvested as needed, but instead must be harvested all at one time.

Even if it proves possible to make ethanol on an economic scale from switchgrass, have you heard anyone who is planning to provide the hundred of acres next to their ethanol plants to store dried and baled switchgrass until it can be processed?

Do you have any idea how much energy it will take to harvest, dry, bale, and transport all that switchgrass to the holding point near the ethanol plant? (I haven't yet seen any EROEI studies for switchgrass ethanol, have you?)

Do you have any idea what will happen if several square miles of dried switchgrass in storage catches fire?

Unfortunately, the only legitimate short term answer to the coming crisis of fossilized biomass motor fuels is conservation and a change in lifestyle.

Regards,

Gary Dikkers

The situation will eventually solve itself, unfortunately that solution won't be pretty.

Gary:

"The situation will eventually solve itself, unfortunately that solution won't be pretty."

Alas, isn't that the way of the world. If you try to get out ahead of the problem, what you basically get is ridicule (if you're lucky).

I heard a good new one yesterday in our local City Council campaign, "eco-leftists." Guilty as charged!

Nice to see that this blog isn't completely dead, however. Nice to see that you're still working away at this. I don't know where you find the patience and the energy.

Check out "gm-volt.com". It's run by a non-GM employee. It has posts every day, and lots of really interesting comments. Unlike certain others I'm too tactful to mention, ahem, ahem.

I stand behind every single one of my what you call "misconceptions".

First of all let me say, I am not trying to save the world and the world's transportation system with ethanol, I am trying to save America's.

Unlike what you think, I do not think they need to start making corn ethanol plants in the middle China. Perhaps their fuel solution would lie in a crop more suitable to their climate. I do suggest it is a good start for America because we produce more corn than any other country in the world and can produce a whole lot more if corn prices stabilized and farmers had a ready market with a fair price for which to market their crops.

Corn ethanol is not the solution for Brazil either, it is sugar cane.

Now ethanol is the biggest creator of jobs in rural America as we speak, it has turned around and enriched once distressed, shrinking, and stagnant farm communities and towns across America. For the first time farmers can sell their corn, soybeans, and other crops at prices they could only have dreamed of several years ago.

If enriching American farmers and prospering once stagnant rural economies with a booming ethanol industry is wrong....

I DON'T WANT TO BE RIGHT!!!

The MONOPOLY of oil garnering close to 100% of our transportation needs has finally been broken. Now big oil has to compete with ethanol prices that show no signs of spiking along with oil prices. Shortly when patrons see a gallon of gas at $3.50 while ethanol is $2.50 they are going to start demanding the fuel and using it just as they have in Brazil. Then the free market will take over and crush the monopoly from OPEC and all your friends that hate the thought of an America that is independent of super wealthy monopolistic agents that fight change and prefer we throw up our hands and try nothing.

Go on ahead, keep thinking OPEC will solve our problems for us.

As for me I will to try anything else.

Edward Hayes said: "Then the free market will take over and crush the monopoly from OPEC and all your friends that hate the thought of an America that is independent of super wealthy monopolistic agents that fight change and prefer we throw up our hands and try nothing."

Mr Hayes,

I don't want us to do nothing. In fact, I dearly want America to be independent of fuel made from ancient, fossilized biomass found under Middle Eastern deserts. In no way do I think OPEC will solve our problems for us.

But I do passionately want us to stop throwing resources in the direction of corn ethanol that could be better used finding transportation fuel alternatives that would actually make some sense.

Think of how much better off we would be if we stopped throwing billions in subsidies and tax credits at Big Corn and Big Ethanol, and instead used that money for real research to find a real solution. (Possibilities: Diesel fuel from algae; biobutanol; liquid fuel from our vast coal reserves; or methanol from coal. Any of those is likely to be a better answer then corn ethanol IF we dedicate the resources and do the research.)

Corn ethanol is nothing more than a feel good, politically acceptable stopgap, and not a very good one at that. Remove politicians and agribusiness lobbyists from corn ethanol, and corn ethanol would quickly disappear since it makes neither economic nor thermodynamic sense.

If corn farmers and ethanol plants were not allowed to consume irreplaceable fossil fuels, but instead had to use ethanol to make more ethanol, there would be no corn ethanol. I don't know why it is so hard to make politicians understand that.

Corn ethanol is utterly dependent on consuming fossil fuels and is no answer for energy independence.

Regards,

Gary Dikkers

Ethanol is not the answer but part of the solution. I like GM's view of multiple transport solutions (E85, Hybrids, Diesels, Hydrogen, plug in electrics).

My gripe is that in the US that GM will not offer a diesel car or extremely fuel efficient Aveo or Cobalt. The Prius has show that there is a demographic (Me :) out there that looking for high fuel economy compact and is willing to sacrifice power, even if it does not use the previous technologies. If an engine smaller than a 1.6L Aveo or 2.2L Cobalt could reach the 2008 40mpg hwy and offer most modern features (pwr. locks, windows, a/c, etc.) then i'm sure they would pick up a new segment similar to adding the Aveo to their lineup in the US. A 1991 Chevy Sprint with a 3cyl. 1L motor manual gets 45 mpg hwy according to 2008 epa estimate standards! If that vehicles were produced at Aveo LT prices and equipped similarly than the average person would save $40 a month (at $3/gallon).

Greg,

Is $40.00 a month really worth the savings? Its such a small percent of the sticker price, and the sacrafices of driving a car that small would probably deter most people. Its a good idea, that I agree with but I prefer to look at fuel costs in terms of percentages of income. What demographic would this be for?

I guess there is the feel good category (and I agree that GM needs to make more Diesels, I would love a Diesel Pontiac or Buick, but I doubt they will do this, since the new EPA restrictions and CAFE make it even more difficult to add an optional diesel to regular cars. Now what would make sense to me is a Diesel Electric Hybrid in the Malibu/Aura/G6 range and one in the Cobalt/G5 range.. and of course one in the Aveo. Problem is deisel fuel is sometimes more expensive then gas and the emissions equipment probably isn't that cheap either.

GM is in a tough spot, but I don't think thats any excuse for them.

I recently purchased a Chevrolet Avalanche. I was excited that I could use E85 fuel. I thought I would save $ since E85 is cheaper at the pump and that I would help the environment. It is true that here in Michigan E85 is around $.30 cheaper than regular fuel however, the fuel economy is terrible. I am lucky to get 8 miles to the gallon. It seems that I continuously have to stop and re-fuel. So I have stopped using E85. I like not placing money in the pockets of the oil cartel but I cant afford to use it.
I am not sure what the answer is to the energy question and what road car manufacturers should take but E85 is not the way NOW , unless the performance improves.