WHy is ethanol fuel costlier per mile than gasoline...why shouldn't government subsidize that?

Question

There are thousands of governmental wasteful programs...including a lot in farming subsidies...I bet somewhere out there ther is free money even for tobacco farmers...why can't government take all that money and subsidize one crop that migh hold the key to saving the planet from green house effect - corn?

Answer 1

As the first answer noted corn is already quite heavily subsidized. Archer Daniels Midland, the largest US corn producer, is also one of the largest contributors to politicians. They are lobbying hard for even more corn subsidies. I agree with you that we should be subsidizing alternative energy, including ethanol production, but the subsidies should be done in a smart way and not just to line the pockets of a select few companies.

Corn based ethanol is the least efficient way to make ethanol. Therefore it is the worst use of our tax dollars to be subsidizing corn based ethanol. Ethanol production based on cellulose, which is the woody part of the plant like the stems and leaves is a far more efficient way to produce ethanol. We could still use corn plants to make ethanol, but instead of using the corn we use all of the rest of the plant instead. That way we can eat the corn and still make ethanol. It's like having your cake and eating it too.

Archer Daniels Midland will not be in favor of cellulosic ethanol because they will not be getting as much of our tax dollars, and unfortunately that means the congressmen and women they finance will also not be as in favor of it either. We need to write to our congress people and ask them to do the right thing here. Subsidize cellulosic ethanol - not corn based ethanol.

Edit - the answer just before mine contains a couple of inacuracies. Ethanol production from corn does produce a net energy gain of about 20%. Ethanol production from cellulose produces a net enrgy gain of about 700% (7X). So it is energetically favorable to produce ethanol. That answer also claims that Global Warming is either not happening or not the responsibility of human released CO2. Both are false. CO2 is changing the energy balence between energy gain and energy loss. The only way to restore the balence is to heat up the earth or to reduce the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Answer 2

While the BTU output of Ethanol is lower than gasoline, this does not mean we can't get the same or better economy. It's not that simple. Standard pump gas at 87-93 octane limits engine compression ratio to around 8-10:1 to prevent knock. Ethanol has a much higher octane rating, I believe around 100-105. This allows for a much higher compression ratio of around 14:1. What does this mean? A higher compression ratio yields a higher thermal efficiency meaning we need less heat (BTUs) to do the same work since we are making more effective use of it. The problem is, an engine tuned for ethanol (high compression and the like) will NOT run gasoline at all. Flex fuel vehicles don't take advantage of high CR to be backward compatible with gasoline, thus losing all benefits of an ethanol-only engine. This is why E85 gets you less mileage than gasoline in a flex-fuel vehicle. Perhaps in some areas E85 is more expensive than gasoline but where I live it's around 40 cents per gallon cheaper. More info on this is availiable at Wikipedia.

Answer 3

To answer the first question, each unit of ethanol combusted produces less energy than that of its counterpart. Therefore, the amount of energy produced by each unit of ethanol will not carry the automobile as far as the energy produced by the same unit of oil based gas. If you don't get as far with each unit, you need to purchase more units and it's more expensive.

The second question is more complicated. First, some states do mandate a small amount of ethanol to be put into each gallon of fuel. Most automobile engines can't sustain the greater corrosive effects of ethanol and can't take more than a nominal amount in the engine (hence the small govt requirements). FlexFuel cars like those being heavily marketed by GM were built to burn ethanol. When thinking about this situation, you should also keep in mind that demand dictates supply, and right now, there aren't a terrible number of cars demanding ethanol. Another more controversial reason for govt not supporting bio based fuels in the past (and I'm sure some will disagree), is that the oil lobby is one of the largest campaign contributors to most of your favorite politicians. They don't give away money out of the kindness of their hearts. And vacations and lavish dinners are NOT bribery ;)

A final word of advice: alternative fuels do not end at ethanol. Take a look into bio diesel (probably the most viable option currently available), natural gas, hydrogen, methanol, plug ins (ultimately coal), etc.

Answer 4

The cost of gasoline is straightforward: the cost of the raw product, once refined, plus transportation costs between source (the well) and use (your car), plus profit for the company that takes it from the ground, the company that sells each stage of the product, and the gas station that puts it in your car. It's a raw, natural product that- in the end- cost less than anything you could buy at the store per gallon until quite recently. Now generic soda (at $.99 per 2-liter bottle) costs less, for example.

Ethanol, on the other hand, has to be grown, which is energy-intensive. Then it has to be harvested, fermented, and the end product- ethanol- is only about 5% of the finished solution, as the ethanol kills the yeast used to ferment the grain. Then there's the waste products that must be discarded at the end. After that, there's distilling the 5% ethanol to absolute ethanol with very little water. Then it has to be trucked or pumped, and blended with gasoline.

In fact, if the average American car (at 10,000 miles per year) were to use ethanol as its only fuel, it would require 852 gallons of ethanol per year. This amount of ethanol would consume the corn grown on 11 acres of land, or enough to feed 7 people for a year (reference 1). If the United States were to have only 150 million cars- the figure is much higher- that would require more than 1.5 billion acres of corn. In the year 2000, only 72.7 million acres were grown (reference 2). In order to power a small fraction of the cars on the road, we'd have to double or triple that figure.

In turn, using that much more corn would also require vast amounts of fertilizer, water, and other resources- all of which require energy as well. Who would pay for that? We don't have enough water to go around as it is.

So- while ethanol superficially seems like a suitable energy source- and it can contribute to reducing the use of gasoline- it is not suitable for more than a tiny fraction of total consumption. Just making ethanol takes a tremendous amount of energy and resources, and is not without its own environmental drawbacks.

Answer 5

Ethanol is costlier than gasoline for a number of reasons:
- Lower energy content - 85,000 BTU/gallon as opposed to gasoline at 120,000 BTU/gallon. You will get fewer MPG with ethanol than gasoline.
- Ethanol is expensive to produce. It requires a lot of energy to plant, harvest, and convert a crop to ethanol - more energy, indeed, than the ethanol contains..
- Ethanol is expensive to transport. It cannot go by pipeline but must be shipped by tank trucks or railroad tank cars.
- Ethanol is in short supply. With its usual mindlessness, Congress has mandated the use of a certain quantity of ethanol in motor fuels, but imposes a stiff tariff on imported ethanol. The principal beneficiary of this largesse is Archer-Daniels-Midland Corp., which scores big time.
Subsidies of any sort are a waste of society's resources. Money winds up being spent on causes that are not cost-effective, and taken by taxation from causes that work.
Notwithstanding the Chicken Littles who are fussing about global warming, there is no need to worry about atmospheric carbon dioxide. The earth's temperature has been changing throughout its history (remember the Ice Ages?) and will no doubt continue to do so. Carbon dioxide is absorbed by the ocean (but not very fast); the ocean contains 50 times as much CO2 as does the atmosphere. Excess CO2 in seawater will combine with dissolved calcium and precipitate out as limestone.

Answer 6

The US government presently subsidizes farmers to grow corn for ethanol.

As to why ethanol is at present costlier than gasoline, just wait, gas prices will get higher soon enough!

Answer 7

Because if they don't subsidize it, the sugarcare ethanol makers in Brazil would control the market. Secondly, what makes you so sure that corn ethanol is the best solution? How about hydrogen? bio-diesel? wind energy? hydro-electric? nuclear? compressed natural gas? fusion? Why subsidize a technology that will become obsolete like the Wankel Engine or the Betamax?

Answer 8

Ethanol already is heavily subsidized by the government.

Additionally, when ethanol is burned, it simply doesn't produce the same amount of energy as regular gasoline, thus you don't get as many miles per gallon of ethanol.

Furthermore, currently producing ethanol costs more than refining a gallon of regular gasoline, thus its cost is on par with gasoline.

Answer 9

Corn is already subsidized.

Answer 10

Because our government is bankrupt do to scandals.