Energy Secretary Chu Wants All Cars To Be E85 Capable
Government involvement in the auto industry could go well beyond control of General Motors and Chrysler if the U.S. Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, has his way. In a speech given earlier this week in the heart of ethanol country — Des Moines, Iowa — Chu said that all cars sold in the US should be able to run on E85 fuel. Chu’s speech stopped short of saying that new cars should run on ethanol based fuel only, rather that the ability to use this fuel should become standard instead of being the option that it is right now.
The energy secretary noted that to outfit vehicles with the special gaskets and fuel lines necessary to make E85 work would cost about $100 per vehicle ($1.5 billion annually for 15 million vehicles sold). Regrettably, Chu failed to take into consideration several important points including that the cost of outfitting cars would further burden struggling automakers while benefiting only those with a financial stake in the industry, namely midwest farmers and agricultural conglomerates.
The push for an ethanol fueling option comes even as there are some very real problems with this type of fuel namely:
- E85 is largely unavailable outside of most corn growing states. A number of states do not have a single pump available to consumers while other pumps are reserved for state motor vehicle fleets.
- E85 offers improved octane over straight gasoline, but it is much less fuel efficient. Fuel mileage drops by 20 to 30 percent when a car is filled up with E85. Minimally, E85 fuel prices must be at least 20-30% lower than regular gasoline in order to make it worthwhile for consumers to use it.
- There are environmental concerns about converting existing forest land to produce corn and other grain products which can be converted into ethanol. Fewer standing trees can have an adverse impact on the world as trees reduce heat, absorb carbon monoxide and produce oxygen. Never mind what sort of impact stripping forests will have on wildlife whose habitat would be destroyed.
- Energy and water is needed to convert grain products into ethanol while pesticides are used to keep the grain growing. Leeching into the soil could harm water sources while lakes, rivers and streams would become polluted.
- Ethanol is typically locally made and distributed, however to get it to population centers on both coasts the fuel would have to be shipped in by truck or rail. Pipelines are prone to corrosion and are not a viable way to move E85.
Chu’s plan may not go anywhere as a number of companies who produce ethanol have gone out of business or are in bankruptcy. Currently, a 45 cent per gallon tax subsidy and a federal government requirement that oil producers use 12 billion gallons of ethanol annually is keeping the industry afloat. However, with little consumer demand for the product, the only way E85 will spread is if the government mandates its usage.
Further Reading
Corn biofuel ‘dangerously oversold’ as green energy
Energy secretary wants E85 capability in all cars
Ethanol Distribution (U.S. Department of Energy)
Trackbacks
8 Responses to “Energy Secretary Chu Wants All Cars To Be E85 Capable”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 26th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Wrong on every point. Here’s why.
1. That’s a chicken-egg argument. Get the cars on the road and the pumps will come, or vice versa. Fact remains that one or the other needs to happen, and the easiest would be the $100 conversion automakers can do to produce Flex Fuel.
2. The only reason ethanol reduces fuel mileage is because the engines are optimized for gasoline. Change the compression and make a couple other minor adjustments and you can get better mileage on ethanol than gas by taking advantage of that higher octane.
3. No one argues that deforestation isn’t an environmental problem. The issue is whether biofuels actually causes it. It has never been observed in the real world. Corn and soy acres, exports and carryover are steady and in some cases records in recent years.
4. The energy balance is still significantly positive in creating ethanol, much better than refining oil into gasoline, in fact. As for the ag problems, they’ll exist without ethanol. We need to fix ag practices, not destroy the only gas alternative available in a significant supply.
5. This is just plain wrong. It has nothing to do with corrosion. The reason you can’t pipe ethanol in an oil pipeline is because ethanol attracts water, so it pulls all the accumulated water in a pipeline into itself and corrupts the product.
A dedicated ethanol pipeline works fine (no oil in it), and they are now building up that infrastructure. There is already one in operation in Florida, and they are planning one to span the Midwest. Oil pipelines didn’t spring up overnight; it will just take time, but it’s already underway.
June 26th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Crush, I must assume you are responding on behalf of the E85 lobby since you don’t share your real name nor do you offer a link to your site.
I’m not saying that in limited fashion E85 won’t work out, especially in corn growing areas of the country. However, ethanol doesn’t work out unless it is heavily subsidized by the federal government.
Deforestation is a huge problem — there isn’t enough farmland to convert to corn without taking away land use for growing other foods. I doubt many of us would risk clearing forests (and killing wildlife) to see if E85 is what we need.
Yes, I know a pipeline is being built, a dedicated one at that.
We have plenty of other fuel sources within our border including oil but especially natural gas. The latter we have in abundance and is the most logical way to proceed in addition to vehicle electrification.
June 26th, 2009 at 10:04 am
I’m not supposed to do this at work, so I don’t use my name. I’m from Minnesota, and we make a lot of ethanol, so I know about it. I also try to keep up on wind power issues. My car can’t use E85 but I wish it could.
June 26th, 2009 at 10:05 am
According to your logic, you must work for the oil lobby.
June 26th, 2009 at 10:06 am
But if you don’t want me on your blog, I will go elsewhere.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
You can convert your vehicles to flex fuel. There is arguments from both sides. Look at the money big oil is tossing in to make people believe that Ethanol is very bad. Some positive points…
Ethanol is made by American workers and the money made goes to American Families.
The emissions are way better since using E85 reduces the cancer causing exhaust from gas down by 85%. It is renewable so it completes the carbon cycle.
Gasoline is just as corrosive as ethanol. This is why both gas and e85 are required to have anti-corrisive additives.
Existing engine parts can handle E85 just find and in fact e85 burns cooler with a higher octane. You might actually see an increase in part lifespan.
You can convert your vehicle for $200 right now and in fact if there was enough convert with aftermarket kits this price would drop to $100 easily.
When there is an ethanol spill there doesn’t need to be exhausting containment like gasoline because ethanol is alcohol and there is no worry of contamination.
Source: Jonny Energy’s E85 Conversion kits.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Building ethanol plants can be expensive. And if the price of oil goes down could cause these plants to default. The government might need to support ethanol plants.
However, what if gas goes to $10 a gallon? Energy Secretary Chu’s plan to require all autos to be E85 could save the day. Then we can get or produce ethanol when clearly viable. This plan cost the government nothing and little to new auto purchasers. After mass production the cost would be insignificant. Only the oil companies would benefit with no plan. It seems to me this plan is an obvious good one.