Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    9:14 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: All Things Ethanol > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Price It and They Will Buy: How E85 Can Break the Blend Wall Back to Topics
gamechanger2011

Champion Author
Wichita

Posts:1,894
Points:72,615
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Aug 8, 2013 5:33:40 PM

"The resulting demand curve for ethanol above the E10 blend wall suggests E85 consumption of about one billion gallons if E85 were priced to generate a six percent reduction in fuel costs. If the price were lowered further to generate a 15 percent reduction then about two billion gallons could be consumed, and a 30 percent reduction would be needed to induce three billion gallons of consumption. These estimates do not account for the increase in the size of the flex vehicle fleet in 2013 and 2014 or the likely increase in the number of stations that will find E85 an attractive fuel to sell."
Price It and They Will Buy: How E85 Can Break the Blend Wall

[Edited by: gamechanger2011 at 8/8/2013 5:35:15 PM EST]
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
dassfg
Champion Author Fort Worth

Posts:2,666
Points:1,145,520
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 28, 2013 8:18:47 AM

A wise man said "when you ass-u-me you make us both one".
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,574
Points:1,412,560
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Aug 28, 2013 8:15:42 AM

skye1212 wrote: "But then, people here are informed about the corrosive,
instability and reduced mileage from E85"

Yet you fail to provide any proof to your statements. Why is that?
Profile Pic
SilverStreaker
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:14,291
Points:2,856,825
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Aug 28, 2013 12:22:43 AM

skye1212, I don't think you have it right. Not everyone in Austin is gullible.
Profile Pic
skye1212
Champion Author Austin

Posts:6,426
Points:724,075
Joined:Feb 2013
Message Posted: Aug 27, 2013 10:58:43 PM

They cant give E85 away here in Austin. But then, people here are informed about the corrosive,
instability and reduced mileage from E85/
Profile Pic
tropicalmn
Veteran Author Minnesota

Posts:278
Points:256,185
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 27, 2013 7:50:07 PM

"Poet project is an example of them saying they have it right but they are not sure. They reduced the size of the plant, and the $105 million in funding is once again backed by the USDA or DOE. In otherwords it is a risk free run at the solution once again. The governmet is funding the experiment and if it does not work then Poet loses nothing."
Not the case.Poet LLC announced Jan. 23,2012 that it will decline the $105 million loan guarantee offered by the U.S. DOE after partnering with Royal.Poet drops DOE loan guarantee, partners with DSM



[Edited by: tropicalmn at 8/27/2013 7:53:28 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,285
Points:23,500
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Aug 27, 2013 5:57:58 PM

"DOE is funding or guarenteeing loans of over $8 billion on projects of this nature and have been since 2008 and before."

Are you suggesting ethanol produces have defaulted on a substantial number of these loans or the loans do not generate interest?

I don't think the government should be in the loan business, either. But, loan default by ethanol companies has not been a major issues as some of the other "green" projects.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,427
Points:25,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 27, 2013 5:42:13 PM

Have not forgot the algae, an even better application I have seen is growing it at the discharge of power plants and pumping the CO2 straight into the bags of algae that will double in size. The source of material for cellulosic ethanol is endless, I have absolutely no doubt. I have admitted if they solve the cost issue, gas is in trouble, but the reality is they have not solved it yet. The Poet project is an example of them saying they have it right but they are not sure. They reduced the size of the plant, and the $105 million in funding is once again backed by the USDA or DOE. In otherwords it is a risk free run at the solution once again. The governmet is funding the experiment and if it does not work then Poet loses nothing. DOE is funding or guarenteeing loans of over $8 billion on projects of this nature and have been since 2008 and before. People complain about oil subsidies but goodness the amounts they give annually and the loan gurentees far outpace any estimates of oil subsidies, but that's okay because the solution is green. How much taxpayer money will be given away over the years in the name of research for green energy?

I am not opposed to cleaner burning fuel, I am opposed to who funds it.
Profile Pic
darwinfinch
Veteran Author Gasbuddy

Posts:457
Points:6,860
Joined:May 2013
Message Posted: Aug 27, 2013 10:25:08 AM

"They still have the same issue today they had a 100 years ago and that is a cost effective enzyme to convert the biomass to a usable carbohydrate with a cost that can allow the ethanol produced to compete in the market place. This is not a techology that needs to be discovered, it is a technology that needs to be perfected and large scale high dollar projects are not the way to perfect it."

Have you looked into what POET and Royal DSM are doing in Iowa? POET is using DSM's enzyme technology, which addresses your "100 year old issue". Private companies investing in innovation.

Don't forget about algae either. The US Navy hasn't.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,285
Points:23,500
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2013 10:24:46 PM

"Reality check. When I say people buy what's cheap I am referring to low ethanol blends, e-10. "

All this time I thought this thread was about increasing E85 market penetration. Thanks for setting me straight.

"Also most people don't want to buy high ethanol blends because well they don't."

About 6 years ago, one of the local radio stations car shows had a fuel expert on to talk about the downsides of ethanol. I was the first call. It took me a few moments to realized the "expert" didn't know what E85 was. He got a real education in front of a hundred thousand people or so. The show's host didn't seem happy with the direction of the program. He went to break. When he came back, no more "expert" to speak of the disadvantages of ethanol. The point is this was a writer, who interviewed many oil company folks and none of them said boo about E85.

Of course E85 has no market share. It's a topic The American Petroleum Institute and other oil based fuel concerns are not going to mention. it's a threat to their business. The organizations supporting ethanol have minimal dollars to advertize. In addition, the positioning, so far, has been a replacement for conventional gasoline. Going head to head with an established commodity is a tough nut to crack.

To make things even tougher, most of the gasoline buyers know gasoline goes in that fuel hole thing near the trunk and have just enough fuel knowledge to recognize that E85 is different than what they've always used. Like I said before, it's a lot more than price.

[Edited by: SoylentGrain at 8/26/2013 10:29:39 PM EST]
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,427
Points:25,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2013 8:21:13 PM

"We often purchase E85 for a dollar a gallon less than regular gasoline. If it were only price, E85 would have a significant share by now. There have been stations selling E85 for a dollar spread for over a decade. There's more to the story than just price, short term tax policies, and RIN credits."

Reality check. When I say people buy what's cheap I am referring to low ethanol blends, e-10. Also most people don't want to buy high ethanol blends because well they don't. Hannie will tell you it's because of big oils lies and propaganda, and many others will agree. As for me I am not sure, I just know most don't want it. The market share of e-85 is so insignificant that it hardly shows up in total sales. I am not saying that to be rude, just honest. For all the posturing, discussions, talk of custom blends of e-30 to e-50 and so on the reality is that there is very little high blend ethanol sold in this country. The vast majority of the ethanol sold in the US is sold in e-10 blends. The numbers I have seen for high blend ethanol which EIA considers anything with more than 50% ethanol are something like.04% of total fuels sales in America. It's just not that much.

[Edited by: brerrabbitTX at 8/26/2013 8:26:59 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,285
Points:23,500
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2013 6:12:09 PM

" I said that 95% of fuel buyers care about price, I know this I work in the industry and see the survey results from market studies."

We often purchase E85 for a dollar a gallon less than regular gasoline. If it were only price, E85 would have a significant share by now. There have been stations selling E85 for a dollar spread for over a decade. There's more to the story than just price, short term tax policies, and RIN credits.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,427
Points:25,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2013 5:22:27 PM

darwin, you make very fair, very valid points. I am in no way opposed to innovation, dreaming, if you will. I am somewhat opposed to dreaming that sometimes costs lots and lots of money when very little of that money is put up by the dreamers, or the dreamers backers. The case I gave in the prior post is point in case.

Bio fuel from waste is not a new concept. Many of the concepts around bio fuel production are not new concepts. They have been making cellulosic ethanol for over 100 years. The concept is not new on innovative. The concept never took off because it is not economically viable and now all of a sudden with government money and loan guareentees somehow people think it is viable. They still have the same issue today they had a 100 years ago and that is a cost effective enzyme to convert the biomass to a usable carbohydrate with a cost that can allow the ethanol produced to compete in the market place. This is not a techology that needs to be discovered, it is a technology that needs to be perfected and large scale high dollar projects are not the way to perfect it.

Yes I look at it from a cost benifit perspective and from the outset that is why I said sugarcane ethanol was ahead of the game given the rules and conditions of the game. I have not said advancements can't and won't be made, just asked what will the costs of those be, because from the outset I have said if they can create a cost effective biomass or cellulosic ethanol then gas would be in trouble. I said that 95% of fuel buyers care about price, I know this I work in the industry and see the survey results from market studies.

Yes I may look at it from an investment perspective but in the end thats what usually winds up winning.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:24,203
Points:2,868,390
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2013 5:18:32 PM

"Failure means little or nothing to INEOS while tax payers will take it in the shorts to the tune of $127.5 million if this thing does not work"

It's worse then I thought...
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,427
Points:25,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2013 5:04:59 PM

"Do you have a source for that claim?" From gamechangers link:

INEOS New Planet BioEnergy (INPB) is a joint venture between INEOS Bio and New Planet Energy. With strong support from the USDA, DOE and the State of Florida, INPB is building the Indian River Bioenergy Center and laying the foundation for full commercial-scale development of the biorefining industry in the United States. In 2009, the project was awarded a $50 million cost matching grant from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and a $2.5 million dollar cost matching grant from the State of Florida. The BioEnergy Center is part of the ongoing public-private sector effort to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, spur the creation of the domestic biorefining industry and provide new cleantech jobs throughout the country.

Further financing:

The financing for the project includes a $75 million privately financed loan backed by a guarantee from the USDA through its 9003 Biorefinery Assistance program.

So if my math is right $50 million from the DOE,$2.5 million from the state of Florida, $75 million loan guarentee from the USDA towards a $130 million project and I would say that INEOS has risked $2.5 million of their own money and friend that is not much skin in the game. Failure means little or nothing to INEOS while tax payers will take it in the shorts to the tune of $127.5 million if this thing does not work.

Profile Pic
darwinfinch
Veteran Author Gasbuddy

Posts:457
Points:6,860
Joined:May 2013
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2013 4:48:25 PM

Brerrabbit, you exist in a world of investments, where security and status quo triumph over risk, and where the occasional risk is only taken in the hopes of profit. That's fine, but it's not fair to take that worldview and apply it to the motives of technology, socioeconomic stability, governance, health, morality, environmental conservation, and the "bigger picture".

Investors stake their risks in incremental wins and losses that can make or break an individual/company. Innovators don't see it this way, and it may be difficult for you to fathom this.

Try to imagine that there are other people out there who do not view the world through the lens of investments and profit, but through a long-term PUSH of positive exploration wherein mistakes can actually be more productive than successes (not true on Wall Street).

The world is full of people literally addicted to fossil fuels. It's a problem, and the attitude of a corporate accountant will not solve it alone. We need dreamers and selfless advocates who can see the bigger picture.

While your points hold merit at times, I honestly feel that you suffer from a positional bias on this topic. You refer to the "real world" often, and in doing so emphasize your distaste for dreaming, innovating, and bold change beyond the games of profit. Dreaming as a distraction from reality can be harmful, but dreaming as an extension of reality has brought virtually every social, economic, and technological advance I can think of.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,427
Points:25,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2013 4:24:57 PM

Lets step back a moment and consider that brainwashing statement there gamechanger. I am not trying to brainwash anyone. I am looking at the fact that the next big growth tranche under the law that is the RFS is in advanced bio fuel. Corn ethanol gets capped at 15 billion gallons which is where we are almost at. That means that after that all ethanol usage growth has to come from what the current regulations call advanced bio fuel. All this thread has been about was a) if high blend ethanol is cheaper then people will buy it, which I was saying long before you started this thread. Then it became a discuaaion of corn ethanol qualities vs sugar ethanol qualities when all I was trying to point out was that because sugar cane ethanol is an advanced bio fuel it is positioned to have significant advantages to second gen bio fuels because it is here now, priced right and available.

Those are simple straight forward points, no brainwashing. The new plants are fine, but how many have already come and gone because they could not survive economically? Technology and the ability to do something is nice. Technology that produces competatively priced product while producing enough profit for the company to stay in business is better.

Think about it, how many corn based ethanol plants come and go and are idled because of demand, price or season? It is a very difficult market to thrive in especially if you are a start up operation with limited cash reserves. This is not brainwashing, this is living in the real world where many on this board don't spend much time.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,285
Points:23,500
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2013 3:41:59 PM

"$50 million of that was a taxpayer handout. "

Do you have a source for that claim?
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:24,203
Points:2,868,390
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2013 3:10:55 PM

"They have spent $130 million dollars to produce the equivilent of 22,000 gallons of ethanol a day or 191,190 barrels a year"

$50 million of that was a taxpayer handout. We will have to wait and see if this operation folds, and yet more taxpayer funds are wasted...
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,894
Points:72,615
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2013 3:08:29 PM

It's called progress Brerrebbitt. How much are the oil companies spending on new technology in the tar sands, fracking and deep water drilling? It's the same thing! Stop trying to brain wash people. We are smarter then that!



[Edited by: gamechanger2011 at 8/26/2013 3:10:06 PM EST]
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,427
Points:25,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2013 2:19:55 PM

Yes I have heard of them. They have spent $130 million dollars to produce the equivilent of 22,000 gallons of ethanol a day or 191,190 barrels a year which is a drop in the bucket as far as US demand goes. Additionally the price of the ethanol using the production costs and return on capital needed for the project to survive on a long term basis prices the ethanol almost $1.50 a gallon over what corn ethanol currently sells for. As yet they have produced little if any ethanol.

If you recal I asked "Don't list pie in the sky projects, startups producing next to no product, etc. Give me good solid examples of projects that are not cornstarch based ethanol that are producing commercially viable quantaties today."

" I am looking to see what is viable, available, and in quantaties that can provide the amount of ethanol required at a competative price that is an advanced fuel as required by the RFS."

INEOS does not meet any of the above criteria.



[Edited by: brerrabbitTX at 8/26/2013 2:24:18 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,894
Points:72,615
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2013 1:52:39 PM

brerrabbitt....Have you heard of INEOS?
INEOS Bio Produces Cellulosic Ethanol At Commercial Scal



[Edited by: gamechanger2011 at 8/26/2013 1:53:47 PM EST]
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,427
Points:25,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2013 12:44:28 PM

So tropicalmn why don't you show us your brillance and list all the current projects that are producing ethanol in the US today that have scale, actual production and a cost structure that is competative in todays market.

Don't list pie in the sky projects, startups producing next to no product, etc. Give me good solid examples of projects that are not cornstarch based ethanol that are producing commercially viable quantaties today.

Given corn ethanol being at or near the top of the limit of ethanol they can produce per the RFA, I am looking to see what is viable, available, and in quantaties that can provide the amount of ethanol required at a competative price that is an advanced fuel as required by the RFS.

Please provide links.
Profile Pic
tropicalmn
Veteran Author Minnesota

Posts:278
Points:256,185
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 26, 2013 11:37:49 AM

“The irony is from the very first post I made way back when what I said was the "system" in this case the RFA has deemed it a competitior to corn ethanol. The RFA is backed by corn money. They oppose any ethanol not derived from corn that can or will compete.”

So from your first post you made it clear you are clueless about the ethanol industry & it just went downhill from there.
The Advanced Ethanol Council (AEC) promotes policies, regulations and programs that will lead to the increased production and use of next-generation ethanol fuels. Our members include advanced and cellulosic ethanol producers, as well as advanced ethanol technology developers and licensors.
The Council is affiliated with the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), the national trade association for the U.S. ethanol industry. RFA and AEC share a common interest in promoting the use of ethanol, and more specifically, broadening the types of feedstocks and processes used to produce the fuel.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,427
Points:25,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 25, 2013 5:27:59 PM

The irony is from the very first post I made way back when what I said was the "system" in this case the RFA has deemed it a competitior to corn ethanol. The RFA is backed by corn money. They oppose any ethanol not derived from corn that can or will compete. The rules were written in such a way that sugarcane ethanol is considered an advanced biofuel. The RFA calls for the increased use of advanced biofuels based on their reduction of GHG. I did not write the rules, I don't care about the science, I don't care where the ethanol comes from, you and others do. What I deal with is the fact that by 2014 the amount of ethanol that will count towards the RFA targets generated by corn starch ethanol will be capped at 15 billion gallons till 2022. All increases in ethanol usage will have to come from advanced bio fuels listed in the RFA. Right now the one clear contender in that race is sugarcane based ethanol because, it is considered advanced, it is in economical production today, the science and manufacturing is proven. The other forms of advanced ethanol sources are cellulosic, bio mass, etc. While those plants are starting up, none have proven that they can be economical, or sustainable. So when the cap hits corn starch ethanol it will make sugarcane ethanol valuable.

That is been the premise from the outset. You said in your first response to me saying sugarcane ethanol was cheaper and better that that was my opinion, well based on the laws, the rules, and the lawmakers interpretations of the science, that is still my opinion.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,285
Points:23,500
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Aug 25, 2013 3:24:31 PM

"It is ironic that ethanol backers are opposed to gasoline usage and value the growth of ethanol usage but even within their camps as demonstrated by this discussion there is good ethanol, and better ethanol. "

I've never said that and I have not seen other ethanol supporters make any such claim. My opinion is we need to use more energy not less. Energy powers our economy. Crude oil, ethanol, soy diesel, wind, solar. every drop of incremental domestic energy use benefits the US economy.

And what do you mean "within their camps"? You are the one claiming sugar cane is superior to corn. I'm saying there's no difference. And again, I have yet to see other ethanol supporters claim one is better over the other.

You make way too many assumptions.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,427
Points:25,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 25, 2013 2:52:13 PM

And what you have failed to acknowledge through the entire discussion is the fact that cost becomes irrelevant when we hit the RFS mandated 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol production per year. At that point sugarcane ethanol becomes more valueble because a government mandated quota kicks in and because the research I linked to agrees with the RFS that sugarcane ethanol reduces GHG more than corn ethanol does. Hence the reason I gave the link to begin with. I presented it for the science which you have yet to disprove other than to say it's wrong. While the link discusses values of ethanol streams, the reality I have been pointing to all along is that sugar ethanol is and will be more valuable. Science does not matter when congress enacts legislation and the RFS gives the nod to one over the other as they have.

It is ironic that ethanol backers are opposed to gasoline usage and value the growth of ethanol usage but even within their camps as demonstrated by this discussion there is good ethanol, and better ethanol.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,285
Points:23,500
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Aug 25, 2013 11:00:18 AM

"and as it has been pointed out to me more than once it helps to give links that support your points, I did, all you have done is say the experts are wrong, they lied, etc."

I have been quoting directly from your sources. How can you say I'm not providing sources?

" Well agree or disagree the economics still hold based on the RFS's nod to sugarcane ethanol."

Read the paper you just referenced. The economics is heavily tied to the value of the US dollar relative to the Brazilian Real. The Brazilian authors of your paper understand this real well (pun intended). Everything they printed was qualified by what the exchange rate is, was, or will be. It makes no difference what the RFS says or what an academic thinks a production cost is. In the end, the US will export and import ethanol based on currency exchange rates.

Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,427
Points:25,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 25, 2013 10:08:04 AM

The original topic was about the price of high ethanol blends. You can be your educated science guy all day long and you can continue to debate the science all you want. From my first post and in posts prior to this thread I have contended that in the end the majority of fuel buyers make their choices based on price. Like the policy or not, agree with it's science or not, it is the rule we operate under today and that rule gives the nod to sugarcane ethanol as being more valueble than corn ethanol for reasons you obviously don't agree with. Well agree or disagree the economics still hold based on the RFS's nod to sugarcane ethanol.

Additionally I don't really care about your educational background and as it has been pointed out to me more than once it helps to give links that support your points, I did, all you have done is say the experts are wrong, they lied, etc. Well at this point I know their credentials and degrees, and I know nothing of yours, so for now I'll go with the experts or you can point me to your published research on the topic and I can review it.


[Edited by: brerrabbitTX at 8/25/2013 10:12:04 AM EST]
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,285
Points:23,500
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Aug 25, 2013 9:41:56 AM

Your paper does not support your claims, beerrabbitTX: "However because corn ethanol production has a coproduct credit, the net cost of ethanol produced in Brazil and delivered to US ports is 17% higher than US corn ethanol (with 1US$ = R$2.15)."

Like I've been saying, when ethanol producers process corn, they make two products in equal weight, Ethanol and animal feed. for each pound of ethanol, one pound of animal feed is produced.

The article does point out an important dynamic. Cost to trade ethanol between Brazil and the US is primarily driven by the relative value of the US and Brazilian currencies. As the US prints more money (quantitative easing), the purchasing power of the US dollar continues to decline and Brazil ethanol gets real expensive.

This is where the authors get free and loose with their CO2 "calcualtions". First off, they made assumptions about the amount of CO2 produced. In other words, they made stuff up. Second, they gave almost mp CO2 credit to the animal feed produced or "coproducts". If weighted equally, they would have shown the CO2 value from cane and corn ethanol is equal.

You are speaking of CO2 credits as if they were life critical. I have years of undergraduate and graduate math, chemistry and physics behind me. Global warning, caused by human beings, is political propaganda, with no scientific basis. If you are suggesting that using sugar cane to make ethanol is going to save the planet, you are talking to the wrong person.

Cane and grain are, simply, carbohydrate sources. There's no magic. It takes a similar amount of energy to process the two and a pound of cane produces the same amount of CO2 as a pound of corn. (if you want to make that an issue). The article touches on these things.



[Edited by: SoylentGrain at 8/25/2013 9:47:31 AM EST]
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,427
Points:25,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 25, 2013 12:04:44 AM

Brazilian Sugarcane Ethanol vs US Corn Ethanol

"Our findings on GHG emissions are summarized in Table 4. Corn ethanol emissions
equal 1.2 kg CO 2 equivalent (CO2-eq) per liter using corn grown under a corn-soy rotation,
while sugarcane ethanol emissions equal 0.55 kg CO 2-eq per liter. Emissions of CO 2 from
gasoline are 12 kg CO 2-eq per gallon."

"On an energy-equivalent basis, corn ethanol decreases emissions by 44% compared to
gasoline, while sugarcane ethanol reduces emissions by 74%. Sugarcane ethanol has 53% less
emissions than corn ethanol. Recent estimates by US EPA shows that sugarcane ethanol from
Brazil reduces GHG emissions by 61% compared to gasoline after including ILUCs.
According to this, sugarcane ethanol would qualify as an advanced biofuel to meet the RFS."

The source is not a blog.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,285
Points:23,500
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Aug 24, 2013 9:58:02 PM

" If burning chaffe of sugarcane is used to create electrical power that means that other sources that contribute to GHG are used so that's a point in favor of sugarcane."

That's my point about matter neither being created nor destroyed. If cane fodder is used to provide power, it produces green house gasses, just like any other energy source. But, it replaces fossil fuel, you say. No, not really. That cane fodder contains nutrients that would could have been left in the field. To replace those nutrients requires energy.

"Also corn uses a lot of nitrogen based fertilizer which takes energy to produce, a lot of natural gas goes into the process."

Sugar cane and corn require the same amount of nitrogen per acre. Typically, about 150 pounds per acre. You really might want to reevaluate the blogs you are reading.

"Also the transportation of the sugar cane to the ethanol plants uses less fuel because most of the truck fleet runs on higher blend ethanol while in the US the trucks, tractors, and most everything else runs on diesel."

You are fabricating now, brerrabbitTX. Diesel equipment is a standard around the world. Besides, the amount of fuel used for crop production and transportation is insignificant. All that diesel fuel and nitrogen, it's next to nothing for both corn and cane.

Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,427
Points:25,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 24, 2013 8:46:50 PM

"Matter is neither created nor destroyed. A ton of cane produces the same amount of green house gas as a ton of corn, or a ton of crude oil. Some one is conveniently leaving out a few steps in your greenhouse gas theory."

You have done this in more than one thread. You conviently leave out any thing that does not fit your story. The GHG comparison is for complete life cycle. If burning chaffe of sugarcane is used to create electrical power that means that other sources that contribute to GHG are used so that's a point in favor of sugarcane. I have never heard of corn contributing any power back to the grid. Also corn uses a lot of nitrogen based fertilizer which takes energy to produce, a lot of natural gas goes into the process. Also the transportation of the sugar cane to the ethanol plants uses less fuel because most of the truck fleet runs on higher blend ethanol while in the US the trucks, tractors, and most everything else runs on diesel.

So logically I can understand why the lifecycle of sugarcane ethanol has a much larger effect on GHG than does corn ethanol. That's the way I see it and that's the way the RFS is written.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,285
Points:23,500
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2013 10:55:31 PM

"sugar cane is a sugar not the carbohydrate "

Cane sugar or sucrose is a carbohydrate.

" Corn starch takes an extra step to make ethanol."

So, what. An enzyme is used to produce the identical components that are contained in sucrose (glucose and fructose).

"Second the yield from an acre of sugarcane is more than from corn. Also the chaffe of the sugarcane is burned to make electrical energy to run the plants."

Wrong. An acre of prime cane will yield about 600 gallons of ethanol. One acre of corn , in the corn-belt, where the ethanol plants are produces over 300 bushels of corn per acre which makes about 600 gallons of ethanol and almost two tons of animal feed. In addition, many landowners are tiling fields to produce even higher yields with the same amount of chemical and fertilizer imput. Your source is dated or just plain misleading. It also takes a year or more to get that crop of cane grown and harvested.

"Also the chaffe of the sugarcane is burned to make electrical energy to run the plants. Excess power is actually sold back onto the grid. Add all this up and the overall GHG reduction is greater for the sugarcane based ethanol than it is for corn based ethanol."

Matter is neither created nor destroyed. A ton of cane produces the same amount of green house gas as a ton of corn, or a ton of crude oil. Some one is conveniently leaving out a few steps in your greenhouse gas theory.

"I did not make this stuff up, it's out there for anyone who wants to read it."

The people writing the blogs you are reading are making it up.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,427
Points:25,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2013 10:19:30 PM

The stated reason for sugarcane ethanol being an advanced bio fuel is because according to studies it reduces GHG emmisions more than corn based ethanol does. That means from the start to finish the overall cycle of producing ethanol is less harmful when you use sugarcane. Why? because sugar cane is a sugar not the carbohydrate that corn starch is. Corn starch takes an extra step to make ethanol. Second the yield from an acre of sugarcane is more than from corn. Also the chaffe of the sugarcane is burned to make electrical energy to run the plants. Excess power is actually sold back onto the grid. Add all this up and the overall GHG reduction is greater for the sugarcane based ethanol than it is for corn based ethanol.

I did not make this stuff up, it's out there for anyone who wants to read it. The question becomes who believes it, and obviously you don't.

And logically everything I have read from qualified sources suggests there are good reasons to believe that sugarcane based ethanol is better than corn based ethanol. Logically there is a difference, you just don't want to accept it and neither does the RFA.

[Edited by: brerrabbitTX at 8/23/2013 10:22:04 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,285
Points:23,500
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2013 6:50:48 PM

"Then why does the RFS put corn ethanol in the 20% GHG reduction category and sugarcane ethanol in the 50% GHG reduction category as an advanced biofuel?"

That's been my repeated question to you. Why would you believe their claims about "GHG" reduction when you don't know how they calculated the difference. Think it through. What logical reason is there for a difference. Logically, there is none.

"Regardless of whether corn is or is not a better producer of ethanol or not, it does not matter, the EPA and congress by way of the RFS has said sugarcane wins. "

The EPA and Congress. Boy, that's a brain-trust you can rely on for accuracy. Look, you've got the EPA discouraging drilling, when we sit on a ocean of oil. You're going to believe these same people when they say importing ethanol is more efficient? That should be a red flag for you.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,427
Points:25,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2013 3:54:41 PM

Then why does the RFS put corn ethanol in the 20% GHG reduction category and sugarcane ethanol in the 50% GHG reduction category as an advanced biofuel? That alone makes sugarcane ethanol more valuble than corn ethanol and that has nothing to do with science. Everyone around here always wants to make their points by running away from reality into their little niches bathed in technicalities and not face the realities of the marketplace.

Regardless of whether corn is or is not a better producer of ethanol or not, it does not matter, the EPA and congress by way of the RFS has said sugarcane wins.
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,574
Points:1,412,560
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2013 2:22:16 PM

brerrabbitTX wrote: "You remind me of someone else I can no longer chat with because we did not play well together."

You mean you got blocked because admins did not agree with your name calling.

brerrabbitTX wrote: "He to asked over and over again for links while as you providing none himself."

Like any other Big Oil Shill you jump from spin to lies. Nicely done.

Here is the link that was provided to you before, yet you continue to completely ignore.

Back up your arguments with facts. Where possible, facts should be supported by a link to a respected Internet source.

[Edited by: krzysiek_ck at 8/23/2013 2:26:00 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,285
Points:23,500
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2013 1:21:08 PM

"So I can provide not less than 10 links to the RFA's opposition to sugarcane ethanol and it's designation as a GHG reducer of 50% and anyone on this board can find the same,..."

The science is certainly contrary to the blogs. Apply some common sense. You can calculate the amount of energy to distill one gallon of ethanol from a fermented batch of carbohydrate. It's the same for cane as it is corn: About 5,000 btu per gallon of final ethanol product. You have to process a quantity of cane or corn to obtain the substrate to make the ethanol. That's going to be about 15,000 btu per gallon of final product.

The only difference between the two sources of sugar is corn produces an equal amount of animal feed per pound of ethanol produced. Cane has no or minimal food value if used to process ethanol. Now considering energy is expended to process corn into food, anyway, it simply defies logic that cane requires three times less energy to process.

All I'm saying is question the blogs you read.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,427
Points:25,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2013 12:47:36 PM

Okay, I'm done, you win corn is the everlasting holy grail of ethanol and the answer to all our energy needs forever. You remind me of someone else I can no longer chat with because we did not play well together. He to asked over and over again for links while as you providing none himself.

So I can provide not less than 10 links to the RFA's opposition to sugarcane ethanol and it's designation as a GHG reducer of 50% and anyone on this board can find the same, you win the "debate" because you make an unsupported statement with no links and ask me for mine over and over again. Well played! You win.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,285
Points:23,500
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2013 12:32:39 PM

""Why do you think the RFA spends so much time and money speaking out against imported ethanol? 1) because it is cheaper and better than corn ethanol,"

That's your assumption. You haven't provided anything to support your claim.

" If you want to play science with it all go for it. Sources I read all say the same thing that sugarcane is a more efficient producer of ethanol than corn."

Science or retread blog postings? I'm going with the science one.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,427
Points:25,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2013 12:23:30 PM

"Why do you think the RFA spends so much time and money speaking out against imported ethanol? 1) because it is cheaper and better than corn ethanol,"That's what I wrote, that's what you challenged and I stand by both statements. If you want to play science with it all go for it. Sources I read all say the same thing that sugarcane is a more efficient producer of ethanol than corn. I will not play fetch with a bunch of links that you can get yourself. I am not making it up, it's out there. Second in the context of the current rules which is the RFS, sugarcane ethanol is better, and cheaper than corn based ethanol. That's the way the rules are written, sugarcane ethanol gets a bigger RIN credit therefore it is worth more to the company that blends it instead of corn based ethanol. Second according to the RFS it reduces GHG more than corn based ethanol.

I did not dream this stuff up, others did, I am just presenting that which others have said and what the rules are.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,285
Points:23,500
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2013 12:05:53 PM

"
This from the RFS. Sugarcane ethanol is an advanced bio fuel and therefore reduces GHG emissions by 50% where corn ethanol only reduces GHG by 20%."

I know this number is circulated round and round. But, never have I seen an original source.

"This and the fact that even the in the best circumstances corns ethanol to fossil fuel used ratio is maybe 2.5 to 1 while sugarcane ethanol is 8 to 1. "

Again, prove this. The energy alone to distill ethanol or gasoline is about 1:5. Unless you are using magic sugar cane, your claim is unlikely. You could achieve that number if you had a fire under the still of old cane stocks. But, on a commercial level, that's one big bonfire. Doubt if the EPA is going to be pleased with that one.

" Corn goes back to food and feed and that's the end of it. No one here can truly believe that corn ethanol is the ultimate answer can they? "

No, that's not the end of it. Only the carbohydrate portion of the corn is used to make ethanol. The protein and carbohydrate portion go back into the food chain. It's the best source going, right now. Other substrates will be used in the future and that will be great. But, don't get caught up in BS, in the meantime.



[Edited by: SoylentGrain at 8/23/2013 12:09:39 PM EST]
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,427
Points:25,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2013 11:48:05 AM

Total renewable fuels. The mandate grows from nearly 13 billion gallons (bgals) in 2010 to 36 bgals in 2022. Biofuels must reduce lifecycle GHG emissions by at least 20% relative to conventional fuels to qualify as a renewable fuel. Most biofuels, including corn-starch ethanol from new facilities, qualify for this mandate. However, the volume of corn-starch ethanol included in the RFS is capped at 13.8 bgals in 2013, but grows to 15 bgals by 2015 and is fixed thereafter. • Advanced biofuels.10 The mandate grows from nearly 1 bgals in 2010 to 21 bgals in 2022. Advanced biofuels must reduce lifecycle GHG emissions by 50% to qualify. A subcomponent of the total renewable fuels mandate, this category includes biofuels produced from non-corn feedstocks—corn-starch ethanol is expressly excluded from this category. Potential feedstock sources include grains such as sorghum and wheat. Imported Brazilian sugarcane ethanol, as well as biomass-based biodiesel and biofuels from cellulosic materials (including non- starch parts of the corn plant such as the stalk and cob) also qualify. The total advanced biofuel mandate for 2013 is 2.75 bgals (ethanol equivalent).

This from the RFS. Sugarcane ethanol is an advanced bio fuel and therefore reduces GHG emissions by 50% where corn ethanol only reduces GHG by 20%. Therefore sugarcane based ethanol gets a much larger RINS credit value and is worth more which reduces the cost of the blended fuel. This and the fact that even the in the best circumstances corns ethanol to fossil fuel used ratio is maybe 2.5 to 1 while sugarcane ethanol is 8 to 1. So for every gallon of fossil fuel used you get 8 gallons of ethanol from sugarcane while you get 2.5 gallons from corn.

So the RFS gives sugarcane the nod, and the economics of 8 to 1 vs 2.5 to 1 seem to give it the nod, so what's so special about corn ethanol? What happens when they figure out cellulosic ethanol at a cheaper price? Corn goes back to food and feed and that's the end of it. No one here can truly believe that corn ethanol is the ultimate answer can they?
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,285
Points:23,500
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2013 11:27:41 AM

"Why do you think the RFA spends so much time and money speaking out against imported ethanol? 1) because it is cheaper and better than corn ethanol,"

Again, prove it. Show me the simple math that making ethanol from cane sugar is more efficient than corn sugar.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,427
Points:25,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2013 10:02:36 AM

"Can you pencil that out? I would be interested in seeing the math on that one."

Refer to your friends at the RFA, they have already penciled it out and come to the conclusion that sugarcane ethanol is a better deal because it qualifies as an advanced bio fuel under the RFS. That means higher RIN credit values and a more economical product than corn ethanol. Why do you think the RFA spends so much time and money speaking out against imported ethanol? 1) because it is cheaper and better than corn ethanol, and 2) because the RFA in America is really just an extension of the corn lobby and they don't want to see increased ethanol usage unless that increase comes from corn.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,285
Points:23,500
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2013 9:02:12 AM

"With import tariffs lifted, it's possible we could import sugar cane ethanol from 3rd world countries. It's cheaper than corn ethanol. "

Can you pencil that out? I would be interested in seeing the math on that one.
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,574
Points:1,412,560
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2013 8:25:35 AM

E-Squirrel wrote: "Federal regulations make it illegal to put ethanol/gasoline into aircraft, and reliability problems are cited as the reason."

Do legacy automobiles use aircraft engines? I don't think so.

E-Squirrel wrote: "Owners manuals of vehicles, including 2013 models, warn of damage to engines from using E15 and higher, point out that using such fuel voids the power train warranty."
and
E-Squirrel wrote: "Some boats have been constructed with fuel tanks sealed
with polymer resins which dissolve or soften on exposure to alcohol."

Nothing to do with how the automobiles or car engines are build.

I will give you one more chance.

Please show us these documented facts. At the same time ensure that they contain the chemical resistance charts instead of personal opinions of a mechanic working for the used car dealership. How exactly are the legacy automobiles designed to run on the paint thinners that are the common components of E0 gasoline?
Profile Pic
aRBy
All-Star Author Grand Rapids

Posts:592
Points:358,425
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2013 10:05:26 PM

E85 has to be 15% lower than E10 just to break-even due to loss of fuel mileage. At times, E85 is MORE than 15% lower, but sometimes it's hardly 10% lower.

Another way to rationalize this price difference is to compare E85 to Premium gasoline because E85 is 105 Octane. That's not the way most motorists look at it.

With import tariffs lifted, it's possible we could import sugar cane ethanol from 3rd world countries. It's cheaper than corn ethanol. This would greatly benefit the balance of trade in third world countries. Who knows! Maybe they'd stop growing dope. :-)
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,427
Points:25,325
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2013 9:50:13 PM

E-Squirrel claims "Federal regulations make it illegal to put ethanol/gasoline into aircraft, and reliability problems are cited as the reason."
How about some proof besides your word.

Not on the aviation side of the business but can tell you that we (and I work for a major oil company that sells lots of jet and Avgas) sell no aviation gasoline with ethanol in it. Not sure if it is by rule, by law, or if the consummers of such products don't want it, but there is no ethanol in the avgas we sell, ever.
Profile Pic
SilverStreaker
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:14,291
Points:2,856,825
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2013 9:36:00 PM

E-Squirrel claims "Federal regulations make it illegal to put ethanol/gasoline into aircraft, and reliability problems are cited as the reason."
How about some proof besides your word.
Profile Pic
E-Squirrel
Champion Author Orange County

Posts:3,446
Points:990,615
Joined:Feb 2005
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2013 5:08:42 PM

krzysiek_ck asks:

"Please show us these documented facts."

Federal regulations make it illegal to put ethanol/gasoline into aircraft, and reliability problems are cited as the reason.

Owners manuals of vehicles, including 2013 models, warn of damage to engines from using E15 and higher, point out that using such fuel voids the power train warranty.

Some boats have been constructed with fuel tanks sealed with polymer resins which dissolve or soften on exposure to alcohol.

You can go look these up yourself.
Post a reply Back to Topics