pic: Ethanol powered car from GM

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

well, yeah, but you are talking about 16% of billions and billions of dollars per year that are presently going to other countries, that could stay here.

Why should they stay in the U.S. if other countries can produce the product more efficiently? After all, even after transport costs are taken into account, Middle Eastern oil is cheaper to produce than American oil, and much cheaper than anyone's ethanol.

So, would you accept higher prices for fuel, just to keep jobs in America? What does that accomplish, on average? The American worker pays more for transportation, causing a decrease in consumption (i.e. buying things), because of reduced disposable income. On the other hand, employment levels presumably increase due to the need to produce locally. Except that reduced consumption could easily cause reduced production, meaning that jobs may be eliminated. How can you be sure that you're balancing these factors?

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

and I believe the pollution from burning ethanol is near zero.

In some ways, it's better, because of the type and concentration of impurities (e.g. sulfur is typically present in gasoline, but not in ethanol). But in terms of things like CO emissions, it's the same carbon in either fuel; it depends on whether the engine is mechanically capable of sustaining relatively complete combustion, and whether the operating conditions permit it. Any hydrocarbon fuel is burned at the whim of its engine.

Also, at present, infrastructure and transportation costs for ethanol exceed those of gasoline. This has plenty to do with the inability to transport ethanol through pipelines, or store it in tank farms, for fear of accumulating water in the fuel. The current solution is to use trucks to transport the fuel; this is impractical given the volume of fuel needed to serve the North American market.

Brazil, which has been using ethanol for years, has a significant advantage over North America: tropical climate. This allows them to grow sugarcane locally, for conversion to ethanol fuel. They therefore eliminate the transport and storage difficulties. But recall that the price of this convenience is a dependence on slash-and-burn agriculture to sustain many cane plantations—they cause environmental damage by eliminating rainforests, rather than by necessitating more transport trucks.

When you look at the whole picture, the operating energy costs of an ethanol infrastructure are at best insignificantly better than gasoline, and in reality, probably somewhat worse. Improvements in transport and storage technology may eventually bring this around, but for today, especially in the Northern U.S. and Canada, a 6-month growing season is not a practical way to sustain a year-round need for fuel.