Ethanol In California: How Everything Has To Change For A Little Bit Of Corn

California, which is often forward-thinking on energy issues, challenged itself to use cleaner-burning fuels in the 1980s. Alexis Madrigal, writing for gas2.0, gets into the history of that, but what you need to know for now is that the challenge resulted in innovation, trial and error, and a lot of scrambling to shift major gears in a complex energy market.

The current solution in California is to have a particular amount of ethanol content in gas. Of course, California's not a huge ethanol-producing state.

So we get to one of the easier-to-understand, harder-to-figure-out issues of ethanol: how does it get from point A to point B? Madrigal explains in depth:

So, through the last half-decade, ethanol, by default, has become a necessary part of transportation fuel in the state. In so doing, the state and its oil industry created a perfect test case for the rapid adoption of an alternative fuel in a gasoline market about the size of China's.

But California had and has very little in-state ethanol production. Companies stretching all the way to Illinois had to figure out how to get corn grown and refined in the Midwest to the west coast. Given the speed of the ramp-up, an ad hoc system developed to keep up with the demand. Remember: keeping up with the demand isn't merely academic; you can't sell gasoline if you don't have enough ethanol.

The real action in a shift like this doesn't occur at what oil companies call the upstream, where a fuel is produced; or downstream, where consumers pay for petrol at energy distribution outlets we call gas stations. What had to change was the midstream, the set of interlocking logistics, transport, and storage facilities that push energy in liquid form around the world.

Read the full story here

Then ask the next questions.

Comments

[cylindar]

Ethanol will not solve the problem. At best it would make up about six percent of current oil usage. However this will cause land shortages for food growing and higher prices for food. So you are really going down a deep dark hole with ethanol. Nice idea but no cigar.

[Marlyn]

Ethanol is not an answer for renewable energy without contributing to global warming.

[TimmySlagle]

This is just another great example of how misdirected people's faith in government is.

Too many, especially those on the Left side of the aisle, think that you can conjure something into existence, just by passing a law.

California has a long history of this kind of Faith in the power of the State. It wasn't too long ago, that they believed it was possible to legislate a Zero Emission Vehicle out of the ether.

[KillTheMessenger]

Still no girlfriend, Timmy? I am sorry, Darling, but you have to learn to be NICE. That works with girls and fellow bloggers alike.

[mamacat]

Interesting article, but isn't ethanol at best just a temporary solution to our problems? Seems to me we need to get off of carbon emitting technologies as soon as it is practical. Developing alternative energy technologies, and using as much electricity as possible in our transportation system, looks like the best way to go at this time, and for the foreseeable future.

[TimmySlagle]

You're right.

We need a comprehensive Federal plan, to invest in MAGIC.

[KillTheMessenger]

How about investing in education? That would help you a lot...

[KillTheMessenger]

Corn ethanol was never a solution to any problem. Ethanol cleans up car exhaust but it's only one of dozens of different chemical and engine modifications that can do the same.

As far as technology is concerned, that's not the problem, either. At least not currently. We are simply driving big irons 24/7. Make that little irons and drive them less and most of the problems we face evaporate.

[GreyFlcn]

For some perspective.
How about we consider this.

Assuming we use the MOST optimistic climate reductions for ethanol from the US DOE's GREET model
Although frankly I consider GREET to be scientific fraud.
Because it completely ignores indirect emissions and uses highly unrealistically optimistic assumptions for direct emissions.
http://greyfalcon.net/landuse.pdf

_

Mileage versus Ethanol.
Which is the better option?
http://greyfalcon.net/oilvsethanol2.png

[KillTheMessenger]

This is primarily about better air quality, not climate change.

And nobody in their right mind accuses corn ethanol in the US of being environmentally friendly.

But thanks for playing.

[GreyFlcn]

Air Quality?

You got it.
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol2
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol3
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol9

[GreyFlcn]

As for it being a "Law".
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2006/May/Day-08/a4252.htm

_______

re: KillTheMessanger
=="running cars on natural gas would be way cleaner than any gasoline/ethanol fuel supply chain can be."==

i.e. Slightly worse than diesel at best.
http://greyfalcon.net/svlglca.png
http://greyfalcon.net/electriccars2.png

Or twice as bad as gasoline if we're talking natural gas from shale formations. (Which is a majority of where people like Picken's expect to get the NG from) Since you get a considerable amount of CO2 mixed in with the CH4, which ends up being vented out of the formations.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/08/study-unconvent.html?cid=126105634
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/01/scientists-link.html

Plus any CH4 that does leak, is 23-56x more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/gwp.cfm
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing3.png

[research]

http://greyfalcon.net/svlglca.png chart is pretty hard to believe since it shows Hydrogen from methane at half the co2 as methane.

[KillTheMessenger]

He is just another shill. Nothing to take too seriously.

[GreyFlcn]

Frankly it depends how you measure it.

If you assume the Hydrogen car has a significant battery to it (initially uncharged)
Then the emissions go down.

Without that however, then the hydrogen looks worse than a Prius.
http://greyfalcon.net/electriccars2.png

That said, if you gave the CNG the same benefit of the doubt. Giving it it's own regenerative braking. Then they'd be back to neck and neck.
_

But yeah, I'm no fan of hydrogen.
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen.png
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen4.png

_

I'm also no fan of Michael Wang's GREET model ;D
http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=2771

Or Khosla for that matter :P
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/14/02133/2988
http://tyler.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/4/11/2873743.html

_

Not particularly fond of Boone Pickens either, since he primarily wants to get his natural gas from oil shale formations. (i.e. High GHG emissions)

[research]

They should change the ethanol law, to use only "waste" to produce it. We don't want to starve.

Then They should give rebates for plug in hybrids and natural gas/propane conversions.

[GreyFlcn]

Research,
What is "waste"?

http://greyfalcon.net/peaksoil.pdf
http://greyfalcon.net/cellulosics.pdf
http://www.stopbp-berkeley.org/CellulosicBiofuels.pdf

Whats more, even if we are talking about fiber in trash dumps.
Wouldn't it be more prudent to recycle it? Rather than incinerate it?

Since otherwise we're going to need more "non-waste" to replace it.

[research]

That's why I put "waste" in quotes.

For instance, agricultural waste probably should be composted. I have heard of processes that ferment alcohol and methane to run the farm, then use what's left for fertilizer. This seems good. Each process should be evaluated for it's overall effect on the environment, not just for any one parameter.

[Craig]

Why not get an amendment to include other forms of alcohol, including butanol? Butanol can be run 100% in most vehicles, can be transported in conventional pipelines (because it does not attract water), and can be produced as a biofuel or from conventional oil (for less than gasoline).

[UnbiasView]

Gotta love government mandates . . . maybe this is why everytime I hear the word biofuels I get a shiver down my back because this is what government does when they they money around.

[KillTheMessenger]

So how about repealing the government mandates that stop your local chemical plant from dumping mercury into your local river?

After all, many chemical processes work much better with tons of mercury in them and dumping it into the river is cheaper than recycling, too.

:-)

[darthdarcy]

Grow Industrial Hemp..!

It renews up to 4 times per year...!

[KillTheMessenger]

Not if you smoke it first.

:-)

[UnbiasView]

I always love the pot heads who promote medical marijuana and hemp products . . . the movement would have a lot more credibility if a hippie with a tie dye shirt wasn't pushing the old guy in a wheelchair.

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

You don't smoke hemp, you smoke marijuana.

[GreyFlcn]

Hemp is also worse than Soybeans at producing biodiesel.
Which is pretty bad to start with.

Then again, I take it you probably don't care about the real details, huh?

http://greyfalcon.net/hemp.png

[TimmySlagle]

No, dude!

Hemp can feed the world, and fuel our cars, build homes, cure diseases, and make all our clothes.

It's such an amazing plant, that you don't even have to weave the fabric. You just go out into the fields, and pick a pair of jeans and a t-shirt right off the plant!

The trouble is, that you can't make any money growing hemp, so the corporate government outlawed it, so we have to pay money to Frito Lay and Hostess for all our food.

[Mildmannered]

Corn ethanol should be banned

[KillTheMessenger]

You have my vote.

[UnbiasView]

Yeah, a vote to ban it is a vote that we the government screwed up again and politicians aren't very good at saying that.

Like most bad government programs . . . it will continue to be funded.

[UnbiasView]

So what is Obama's record on supporting corn ethanol?

[KillTheMessenger]

If you want to stop corn ethanol, you have to be president first... if you want to become president, you have to win Iowa... and if you want to win Iowa...

And now you know why this country is so insanely screwed up.

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

I'm going to keep this simple as always.

Ethanol = Starving the Poor.

[KillTheMessenger]

And I thought corn ethanol was all about subsidizing the rich. But that's probably the same...

[NL207]

Try it this way:

Government mandates and subsidies for ethanol as an alternative fuel have as unintended consequences tied grain markets directly to fuel markets and thereby increased food prices to the poor and led to food riots in the developing world.

Like most liberal government meddling in economic affairs, ethanol is a failure.

[KillTheMessenger]

First remark: there is no science or engineering link between ethanol and corn. We just decided to make one for the sake of political subsidies.

Second remark: the amount of ethanol needed is proportional to the amount of clean burning gasoline needed. Cut the gasoline consumption in half and you need half as much ethanol. One could even argue that if we burn half as much gas but are willing to tolerate the same level of pollution, we can reduce the fraction of ethanol in gasoline and use even less...

Third remark: running cars on natural gas would be way cleaner than any gasoline/ethanol fuel supply chain can be. Running natural gas/electric hybrids (plugin version) is a total winner on all fronts.

We can mandate all of this the same way as we mandated ethanol to begin with. That we don't is simply the result of corn ethanol being a political and not an environmental issue.

[SayWhatYouWill]

Can you explain what you mean by "there is no science or engineering link between ethanol and corn"?

A move towards natural gas/electric hybrids is not without its problems. Building the infrastructure needed to handle this vehicles requires a tremendously high capital investment by both the private and public sector. As a "bridge" solution, the opportunity costs may be too high. What do you think?

[WASanford]

Killer means that ethanol does not necessarily have to be made from corn. There is movement to make ethanol from other sources, but burning ethanol still puts hydrocarbons into our atmosphere and I believe that we must do better if we're going to save our skins.

I also believe that "bridge" solutions simply waste precious time. We have the technology to do better than that, all we really need is the will.

[KillTheMessenger]

"Can you explain what you mean by "there is no science or engineering link between ethanol and corn"? "

Because it is easier (and probably more efficient, too) to make ethanol from coal, oil or natural gas than it is to make it from corn. Corn is just not a good energy source.

"A move towards natural gas/electric hybrids is not without its problems."

It is no harder than transporting large amounts of gasoline. You just have to order an LNG truck instead of a gasoline truck. And the upgrade for a gas station is approx. $1 million. We should start by replacing dirty truck diesel engines with LNG fueled trucks. That alone would do way more for the environment than we can hope to achieve with corn ethanol.

"As a "bridge" solution, the opportunity costs may be too high."

There is no such thing as "costs that are too high". There is only such a thing as a "I want it but I am too cheap to pay for it" attitude. Either we want a clean environment and are willing to pay for it or... we don't.

[ibsteve2u]

"Read the full story here

Then ask the next questions"

Why biofuels? That is always the question I end up with. Raises food prices and makes food more difficult to obtain. Better to put more emphasis on electric cars and giving people a shot at getting off the energy companies' radar altogether.

They buy Presidents and create wars for profit, ya know. And now it appears they buy Vice Presidents, too.

(No, the current one is a volunteer).