Say NO to Alcohol When Driving

*Warning posted on E85 pump.*

A couple of weeks ago, Mike Allen's "Drive It Forever" column in this publication (January 26, 2006) responded to a question about the use of E85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, in cars designed to run on 87 octane regular. As Mike wisely pointed out, E85 can cause serious damage to fuel systems unless they are specifically designed for E85. He also pointed out that E85 is not as energy efficient as gasoline, and that it may actually cost more in the long run than using gasoline.

But a renewable source of fuel for our cars and trucks, with no more dependence on Middle East oil, sounds like the ideal solution, doesn't it? According to the public relations hype, ethanol is exactly that. In the real world, ethanol has a long way to go before it can truly be a suitable alternative fuel.

Everclear. 190 Proof Ethanol.

First, a little education on ethanol. Also known as ethyl alcohol or grain alcohol, it is made from biomass including grains, stalks and leaves. Think of it as 200 proof Everclear. It is used by industry as a sanitizer and solvent. Though other countries make ethanol from sugar beets, and it can be produced from waste plant materials such as tree bark and other plant products not suitable as food, corn is the most popular source in the U.S. since that gives corn farmers another market for their product. There are several companies that produce ethanol from the leftover grains used to make beer, and even a couple that use the whey left from making cheese. Ethanol producing factories have been springing up all over the Midwest in recent years, and there are many more under construction.

With the recent increase in gasoline prices, alternative fuels have become a popular space filler for the news media. Some technologies are years away, and some, like gasoline/electric hybrid vehicles are here now. Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) capable of using E85 have been available for several years. It is estimated that five million FFVs have already been sold in the U.S.

Driving an FFV that can run on a renewable fuel seems like a great alternative to the use of non-renewable petroleum. Minnesota's governor is a strong advocate, billboards and other ads promote E85, and the Duluth News-Tribune has written several editorials touting ethanol as the fuel of the future available now.

But you seldom hear about the negative side of using ethanol. That's because the ethanol producers, agricultural companies like Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) and Cargill, have a cadre of public relations people to report only the good, and a phalanx of lawyers to crush those who dare report the bad. Since they stand to reap huge profits from ethanol, they are understandably eager to protect their investment in ethanol plants.

In addition, they receive huge subsidies from the government to produce ethanol, which actually would cost more than gasoline were it not subsidized. Since 1987, the state of Minnesota has spent more than $200 million to subsidize ethanol production. Minnesota currently provides a tax exemption of 5.8 cents per gallon of E85, plus a "producer credit" of 20 cent per gallon (up to 15 million gallons, or $3 million). Federal subsidies provide an additional 51 cents a gallon for ethanol production (this does not include subsidies paid to corn producers). That far exceeds the taxes paid on motor fuels used for road improvement.

There is no money to be made in opposing the use of ethanol, so it is rare to see anything negative on the subject. Those who speak out against ethanol are probably at risk. I fully expect to receive a threatening letter from the legal staff at ADM for writing this article.

I am not much to follow politics and the lobbying that goes on to get bills passed through Congress and the state legislatures. However, this paragraph in the 1995 article "Archer Daniels Midland: A Case Study In Corporate Welfare" by James Bovard, really caught my attention. (The complete article and other on ethanol subsidies can be found on the web site for the Cato Institute, cato.org.)

"Nothing symbolizes ADM's political exploitation of Americans better than ethanol. Ethanol has become a magic obeisance button for politicians. Simply mention the word and politicians grovel like trained dogs, competing to heap the most praise on ethanol and its well-connected producers. Regardless of how uncompetitive the product may be, politicians have for years talked about ethanol as if it were the agricultural equivalent of holy water. Ethanol producers have received a de facto subsidy of nearly $10 billion since 1980--yet they continue demanding more, more, more."

Politics aside, ethanol is not nearly as efficient as gasoline as a fuel. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) says it takes 1.5 gallons of ethanol to equal the energy in one gallon of gasoline. That means far fewer miles to the gallon, and more frequent fill-ups at the pump.

The DOE has a web site which discusses FFVs and lists the vehicles that are currently available (www.fueleconomy.gov). The most fuel efficient vehicles on that list are the Chevrolet Monte Carlo and Impala with a 3.5-litre, 6 cylinder engine. On 100 percent gasoline the fuel mileage projected by EPA testing is 21 mpg city and 31 mpg highway. Using E85, the fuel mileage drops to 16 city and 24 highway. Projected annual fuel costs are $1416 using gasoline and $1578 using E85. (Annual fuel costs are determined using a formula that presumes 15,000 miles of driving in a year, 45% highway driving, 55% city driving, and fuel prices of $2.00 per gallon for E85 and $2.36 for gasoline. On the day this was written, the price in Duluth for gasoline was for $2.29.9 and E85 was $2.03.9.) Though the price per gallon for ethanol may be lower than gasoline, using E85 is more costly in the long term.

Minnesota mandates a blend of 10 percent ethanol into regular gasoline, so Minnesota drivers may experience slightly lower fuel mileage than if they used non-ethanol fuel. On the plus side, a small amount of ethanol does boost the octane rating of gasoline. (More on Minnesota's ethanol requirement here.)

A question raised by the News-Tribune in one of its editorials was why the price of E85 rose when the price of gasoline shot up last summer. That's because ethanol production is dependent of fossil fuels. The corn used to make ethanol is a very small part of the equation, the larger part is the amount of natural gas required to process the corn into alcohol. So the price of ethanol is closely linked to the price of petroleum products.

A couple of studies, at Cornell University and the University of California in Berkeley, claim that it actually requires more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the resulting energy in that gallon of ethanol. Those studies, understandably, have been denounced by the ethanol industry, but they are worth considering when looking at the viability of ethanol as a fuel.

The environmentalist in me is all in favor of renewable alternatives to the depletion of fossil fuels. The realist side of me says that ethanol is not a viable solution, at least not yet.