Market Currents
As corn prices explode in the face of the worst drought in over a half century, ethanol, once...
-
Saturday, July 28, 2012, 11:30 AM ETAs corn prices explode in the face of the worst drought in over a half century, ethanol, once touted as the homegrown, eco-friendly replacement for foreign oil, is fast becoming the new product everyone loves to hate. The fact is however, we've come to rely on the corn-based fuel's high octane level as a boost to the sub-grade gasoline currently being churned out of our nation's refineries. The crisis leaves us with two tough choices: higher gas prices, or higher food prices.
Other date
Latest Commodities Articles
This news story has 29 comments:
While excess water in gasoline can cause issues, It does not Reduce octane, it actually raises it.
Hence the old hot rodder trick of water injection.
In the late 1980's GM even considered water injection for the high performance versions of Turbocharged Buick V-6's at the time.
This would allow higher boost pressures without the need for higher octane fuel.
But Gov't being the way it is, mandated all the plumbing and delivery systems to be designed as that of gasoline, (classifying water as fuel, despite it being non-flammable itself) thereby making it too costly to implement.
As Far as ethanol.
It was originally never mandated, but just one available solution to seasonal mandates of oxygenation of fuel in certain regions, in order reduce CO emissions during winter months.
Oxygenation effectively leans mixtures.
Ironically, Gov't is behind the tech curve again, as it mostly only works in carburetors, which happened to be getting phased out at the same time by automakers, on order to meet the myriad of ever increasing tailpipe emission standards being phased in over time.
Closed loop Fuel injection simply adjusts air fuel ratio to programmed levels when in operation.
Just one of the reasons fuel mileage is reduced with ethanol blended fuel, in addition to ethanol's lower energy content vs gasoline to begin with.
Due to ethanol's issues regarding water and corrosion, Oil companies opted to most use MTBE as the solution to the mandates.
With Groundwater contamination, from MBTE leading to it's ban, ethanol became the next available solution, for the oxygenation mandates, much to the objection of oil companies.
Once the farm lobby got their way with ethanol, a new argument (energy independence) then took hold, pushed by the Farm Lobby.
(ADM)
(I won't bother getting into the inefficiencies of making ethanol from corn vs sugar can) (CZZ)
Such is why we see ethanol blended in gasoline 12 mos per year now.
One positive by product, of ethanol, is it's relatively high octane, allows oil companies to avoid other additives that would otherwise be necessary, to boost octane via other methods.
( Lubrizol) (NEU)
Lead being one of the most effective means, no longer available.
First due to catalytic converter incompatibility, (mostly since 1975) then concerns of lead emissions itself.
Lead also had the added benefit of valve lubrication and protection, which also had to be addressed upon it's banning.
Jeremy Johnson's, claim that Octane in and of itself is no measure of gasoline's overall quality is correct.
While most of his other assertions regarding octane requirements are true as well, he forgets to mention a key point.
While it is true Knock sensors can prevent damage from detonation, from low octane on many engines, when such systems are triggered they reduce fuel mileage and performance considerably.
All engines have a minimum design requirements and appetite for octane, which must be met to meet performance design parameters.
Regarding knock sensors specifically, I think perhaps in the early days there may have been more of an impact from their use, but the technology has increased to the point where dynamic changes can be made very quickly and in small gradations so that overall economy and even performance is not impacted to a great degree. Another factor is the design of the motor itself. Recent engine designs are much more knock resistant due to advanced fluid modeling techniques eliminating physical structures in the cylinder that tend to create detonation and can better control the chances of preignition.
Still, for a commuter car, or even a sports car used as such, the opportunity to create knock will be very limited -- perhaps 1-3% of miles driven. So there isn't much opportunity for loss of performance or economy. That is ultimately why this headline about octane was just sensationalism. If you are are putting 87 octane gas in your car to begin with, small variations in octane are just not going to effect you at all. I would be far more worried about other aspects of gasoline quality than octane for normal, every day use.
Other recent technologies like Direct injection (effectively reducing temperatures, have aided as well.)
Along with other tricks, Like Mazda's new "Skyactive" system, using the acktinson cycle theory, have allowed compression ratios previously unheard of given the Octane level of available retail gasoline.
That statement is a complete and utter lie.
Correct you are. If the ethanol mandate were eliminated and all subsidies eliminated, gas and food prices would both go GO DOWN!!!
Another poor solution with unintended consequences rammed down our throats by the government eco-idiots.
A second problem that is swept under the rug is that of new two-cycle engines requiring higher octanes to meet warrantee and operation specs. That is, if you have always mixed the oil/gas at 87 octane, you will burn up most new two-cycle equipment like chainsaws or weed wackers. mjohn
The only reason it was able to be put forward as a national security initiative was that it was originally intended to combat global warming. This fraud was cloaked in the guise of "saving the planet" which is why it was so easy to get through Congress. Who wants to vote against saving the planet?
So we get another unintended negative consequence of following the fraudulent science of man-made global warming fraud. Fraud and lies beget more fraud and lies.
Your argument is not based in fact. The reality is that the eco crowd has almost no political pull in congress but conversely the farm lobby is very strong. Since corn is primarily grown in the red states, ethanol production is really a red state agricultural subsidy and is seen as a jobs program in that the fermentation facilities also happen to be co-located in red states.
The ultimate irony in the corn/ethanol debate points to the fact that farming in the US is probably the most "socialist" business activity in the US thanks to conservative republicans and democrats.
As you can see below from the Billings Gazette, farmers in the reddest of states want an ever continuing federal handout:
"July 23, 2012 5:45 am • By Tom Lutey
With the largest drought in a half century chewing up farm acres, the call for federal assistance is growing.
Montana farm groups are calling on Congress to renew emergency loss programs that expired last September. Forage losses to drought and fire, as well as lost crop revenue are hitting southern Montana farms and ranches hard.
“A significant portion of Montana is in pretty rough shape, the south and southeast,” said Ryan McCormick, Montana Grain Growers vice president.
Four disaster programs that expired last September should be revived to help drought-affected farms and ranches, McCormick said. For farmers, the big one is the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Program. Also known as SURE, the program covers crop and livestock losses that crop insurance doesn’t cover. It was created in 2008 as part of the farm bill, but expired a year ahead of other farm bill provisions, which end in two months...."
But the dumbest portion of the story has to do with using corn (or other food grains for that matter) to create ethanol. The most sensible solution is cellulosic ethanol. It isn't made from food, its made from any form of waste which has a cellular structure (yard waste, wood chips, sawgrass, the list is endless and the feedstock for the process need not have any role in our food chain at all).
The Brazilians use sugar cane, quite successfully (and would not mind exporting it to us, for that matter).
Ironically, rare mention is made in congress of our sugar subsidy.
When used with a car designed for it, ethanol is good motor fuel, in some applications, a fantastic motor fuel, so that element should not a be a concern. But tying transportation fuel to soil depletion seems like a bad idea.
Granted, if you have a very high-performance car that relies on high compression you will benefit from high octane fuel. That is why we will always see multiple grades of fuel sold.
But, you don't need that much ethanol to just boost octane. The current usage exceeds that by a margin. There are alternatives to ethanol in any case. The oil shale boom has increased the supply of naturally occurring C4s-C6s which can be used to enhance octane.
As the cost goes up maybe the refiners will find other materials to use to create ethanol (assuming they decide to keep using it).
If folks haven't yet realized that almost anything the government gets involved in eventually will end up screwed up, then they basically are living in la-la land.
Our government is now one of the most corrupt in the world. And the more we can shrink it and its footprint the better our lives will end up being.