Do we really need EVs: Brazil's ethanol fueled cars

[GearheadGrrrl]

Interesting article from Bloomberg today complaining that the success of ethanol fueled cars is killing EV sales in Brazil. No reason to complain- Brazil is getting most of the benefits of EVs by switching fuels instead of cars and electric grids! Link: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-07-19/why-brazil-is-falling-behind-in-the-electric-car-transition?srnd=premium

[Chrisgb]

The problem with 100% ethanol is that is still a carbon based fuel: C2 H6O, where C2 is 2 atoms of carbon, H6 is 6 atoms of hydrogen and one atom of Oxygen.

It has much less carbon than gasoline stock: C8 H18. But ethanol has a lower energy density, so you need to burn more of it to do the same work. So more raw material (corn) is needed, more jungle has to be cleared for cornfields, which absorbs less carbon that the jungle it replaced, and the net result is still carbon being released into the atmosphere, and less being absorbed.

[GearheadGrrrl]

EVs just like biomass fueled vehicles are for all practical purposes low carbon vehicles, as almost all of them rely on some of their electricity coming from carbon fuel sources as well as the carbon used in their manufacture. If you read the article you'll see that Brazil is getting carbon reduction similar to what EVs would give without the hassle of replacing the whole fleet and building out a massive charging system.

[92merc]

Ethanol production for vehicle use needs to go away.  Studies have been done that show the overall gain in lower pollution and lower fuel efficiency isn't offset from what was made in production.  Engineering Explained on YT did a nice video with his own conclusions basically resulting in the same thing.  The gains aren't worth it.  And this was BEFORE CO2 was even considered in the evaluation.

 

The ethanol/corn industry is being subsidized to produce ethanol for cars.  Now that CO2 is being considered a pollutant, the government is looking into subsidizing the ethanol industry MORE to capture the CO2 and pipe it underground.  A whole lot of farmers in ND and SD are pissed because they don't want CO2 pipelines in their property.  Threats of eminent domain are being tossed around to get the pipelines.

 

I know this won't be popular in my state as many farmers produce ethanol corn.  But how about we just dump making ethanol in the first place!  No more government subsidies means no more making ethanol, means no more making CO2.  

 

Reminds me of the old joke.  "Guy goes into doctors office.  Says 'Doc it hurts when I do this".   Doc says 'Well then, don't do that.'"

[rperez817]

13 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

No reason to complain- Brazil is getting most of the benefits of EVs by switching fuels instead of cars and electric grids! Link: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-07-19/why-brazil-is-falling-behind-in-the-electric-car-transition?srnd=premium

 

Thanks for sharing the Bloomberg article GearheadGrrrl. Use of biofuels has a couple major benefits, those being that they're renewable, and from reduction of fossil fuel use for operation of the motor vehicle. However, it lacks most of the other benefits of BEV.

• As Chrisgb mentioned earlier in the thread, ethanol is a carbon based compound with lower energy content than gasoline, and the land use required to grow the requisite crops used for ethanol production in Brazil (primarily sugarcane) and U.S. (primarily corn) negate some of the emission reduction from using ethanol versus gasoline in motor vehicles.
  • BEV has zero tailpipe emissions for the vehicle under operation, ICE vehicles fueled by biofuels do not
• Otto Cycle and Diesel Cycle engines using biofuel are very inefficient compared to electric motors 
• Similarly, ICE using biofuel have higher levels of NVH compared to electric motors
• BEV offers the convenience of charging ("fueling") at home
• BEV has lower maintenance requirements than an ICE vehicle using biofuel
• Lifecycle emissions performance for the entire fleet of BEV will get better over time as power generation shifts to renewable energy, even before vehicles are replaced with newer ones
• Capital investments in the global automotive industry are focused on BEV

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

Otto Cycle and Diesel Cycle engines using biofuel are very inefficient compared to electric motors 

True but irrelevant, even if burning gasoline or diesel.  What’s actually most important is ICE efficiency versus the efficiency of the electrical power plant producing the electricity, and even then that’s not the entire picture.  What we should care about is not thermal efficiency, but how much GHGs are actually produced.

 

This difference is most obvious when comparing a nuclear plant to a natural gas plant generating electricity, even when thermal efficiencies are similar or identical.  The amount of CO2 produced are completely different.  Worse yet is an efficient coal plant that pollutes even more at same efficiency.

 

What concerns me is that average person sees that electric motors are 3 times as efficient and jump to a completely wrong assumption.  It’s just not that simple.

 

 

[silvrsvt]

7 hours ago, Rick73 said:

True but irrelevant, even if burning gasoline or diesel.  What’s actually most important is ICE efficiency versus the efficiency of the electrical power plant producing the electricity, and even then that’s not the entire picture.  What we should care about is not thermal efficiency, but how much GHGs are actually produced.

 

This difference is most obvious when comparing a nuclear plant to a natural gas plant generating electricity, even when thermal efficiencies are similar or identical.  The amount of CO2 produced are completely different.  Worse yet is an efficient coal plant that pollutes even more at same efficiency.

 

What concerns me is that average person sees that electric motors are 3 times as efficient and jump to a completely wrong assumption.  It’s just not that simple.

 

But even in the worst case scenario-an EV still cuts CO2 emissions in half vs a gas powered vehicle. I used the worst ranged Rivian pickup with 22 inch wheels vs a RWD Ranger that would get the best mileage and even using a West Virginian ZIP code that I'm assuming is using coal for power, its 240g/mi vs 410g/mi for the Ranger. It drops down to 170g/mi in my area, which is roughly 50% Nuke and another 40% from Natural Gas.  

[akirby]

Why are we still arguing about this?

[jpd80]

16 hours ago, Chrisgb said:

The problem with 100% ethanol is that is still a carbon based fuel: C2 H6O, where C2 is 2 atoms of carbon, H6 is 6 atoms of hydrogen and one atom of Oxygen.

It has much less carbon than gasoline stock: C8 H18. But ethanol has a lower energy density, so you need to burn more of it to do the same work. So more raw material (corn) is needed, more jungle has to be cleared for cornfields, which absorbs less carbon that the jungle it replaced, and the net result is still carbon being released into the atmosphere, and less being absorbed.

They use sugar cane (more efficient than corn) so it’s recycling of the carbon drawn from the atmosphere.

Brazil’s current sugarcane crop is massive so instead of selling sugar, more is directed into ethanol fuels.

I understand the conflict but for places like Brazil it seems to have worked Ok for decades now (replace oil companies)

Edited July 22, 2023 by jpd80

[SoonerLS]

6 hours ago, akirby said:

Why are we still arguing about this?

You must be new here. Welcome!

[silvrsvt]

On 7/22/2023 at 12:53 AM, jpd80 said:

I understand the conflict but for places like Brazil it seems to have worked Ok for decades now (replace oil companies)

 

But on the flip side they've destroyed a lot of the rain forest in doing so also. 

[passis]

15 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

But on the flip side they've destroyed a lot of the rain forest in doing so also. 

The rainforest is indeed being destroyed. But not for sugar cane plantations.

[jpd80]

On 7/24/2023 at 4:31 AM, silvrsvt said:

 

But on the flip side they've destroyed a lot of the rain forest in doing so also. 

That’s true, a lot of the land is being used to expand cattle ranches and soy farms.

I look at the present sugarcane crop, it’s massive and not totally devoted to fuel either, so there’s a lot of good and bad in the equation but at least they established something that guarantees fuel supply that doesn’t come from traditional oil production. I don’t know what the answer is but it pleases me that people are trying different things.

[silvrsvt]

Some interesting reading on the topic-

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil

 

https://www.iea.org/articles/how-competitive-is-biofuel-production-in-brazil-and-the-united-states

 

Seems like they are doing the same thing as the US is-cutting the gasoline with ethanol, but to a higher degree. 

[Rick73]

7 hours ago, jpd80 said:

That’s true, a lot of the land is being used to expand cattle ranches and soy farms.

Cattle produces a lot of GHGs, so that’s on top of losing rain forest.  On the other hand people need food, whether sugar or meat and dairy.  A lot of our problems are really coming from added population, which has doubled in last 50 years or so.  It’s difficult to imagine how humans and environment will survive if or when it doubles again in next 50 years.  Unfortunately, poor tend to have a lot of kids, so not surprising Brazil keeps cutting down rain forest. 

[silvrsvt]

49 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

A lot of our problems are really coming from added population, which has doubled in last 50 years or so.  It’s difficult to imagine how humans and environment will survive if or when it doubles again in next 50 years.  

 

The big worry now is that we will see population shrinkage in the next 20 years or so, due to people not having as many kids.

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/06/17/worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/

 

[rperez817]

Looks like Ford is promoting Mustang Mach-E heavily in Brazil. 

[Trader 10]

On 7/21/2023 at 9:38 AM, 92merc said:

 

The ethanol/corn industry is being subsidized to produce ethanol for cars.  

 

 

What subsidies are you referring to?

[silvrsvt]

9 hours ago, Trader 10 said:

 

What subsidies are you referring to?

 

 

https://civileats.com/2022/02/14/how-corn-ethanol-for-biofuel-fueled-climate-change/

 

The U.S. is the world leader in biofuel production—generating 47 percent of global output over the last decade. The ten-fold expansion in ethanol production in the U.S. from 2002 to 2019 has been driven by the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), a federal program that since 2005 has required transportation fuel to contain a minimum volume of renewable fuels. So far, that has largely meant corn ethanol. Currently 98 percent of gasoline in the U.S. contains some ethanol, most commonly 10 percent, or E10.

 

Despite the promise that the RFS would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a new study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) today finds that expansion of U.S. corn cultivation has come at eye-popping environmental costs. Corn production expanded by 8.7 percent, or 2.8 million hectares (6.9 million acres), between 2008 and 2016. As a result, the researchers found that nationwide annual fertilizer use surged by 3 to 8 percent and water pollutants rose by 3 to 5 percent. The sheer extent of domestic land use change, however, generated greenhouse gas emissions that are, at best, equivalent to those caused by gasoline use—and likely at least 24 percent higher.

[92merc]

This is a good article on what is going on with the US Government and Ethanol.

https://www.thoughtco.com/understanding-the-ethanol-subsidy-3321701

[jpd80]

On 7/27/2023 at 1:25 AM, 92merc said:

This is a good article on what is going on with the US Government and Ethanol.

https://www.thoughtco.com/understanding-the-ethanol-subsidy-3321701

The way it was explained to me was that without the ethanol subsidy, the government would be covering corn grower losses anyway, so this way they make something and we’re seen to be helping reduce CO2 and supporting farmers. I wonder how much the subsidy actually helps these days, may be worth another look under the hood to see if it’s a “rock painting” exercise….

[Trader 10]

On 7/26/2023 at 10:25 AM, 92merc said:

This is a good article on what is going on with the US Government and Ethanol.

https://www.thoughtco.com/understanding-the-ethanol-subsidy-3321701

This article is outdated and incorrectly infers that the “ethanol subsidy” ( blenders credit) is still in effect. In fact, it ended several years ago. There aren’t any current subsidies being paid to corn growers, ethanol producers, or blenders of ethanol. I believe there are some subsidies in effect for advanced biofuels but that doesn’t include ethanol from corn. 

 

 

 

 

[Trader 10]

On 7/26/2023 at 6:58 AM, silvrsvt said:

On 7/26/2023 at 6:58 AM, silvrsvt said:

 

 

https://civileats.com/2022/02/14/how-corn-ethanol-for-biofuel-fueled-climate-change/

 

 

 

https://ethanolrfa.org/ethanol-101/why-is-ethanol-important

 

A Cleaner, Greener Fuel

Ethanol reduces carbon emissions, removing the carbon equivalent of 12 million cars from the road each year. At the same time, the environmental impacts of producing ethanol have been greatly reduced. Natural gas and electricity use at dry mill ethanol plants has fallen nearly 40 percent since 1995, while consumptive water use has been cut in half. This has occurred while the amount of ethanol produced from a bushel has increased. Producers are getting 15 percent more ethanol from a bushel of corn than 20 years ago. The result? A smaller carbon footprint and an increase in energy efficiency. Ethanol use reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 44-52 percent compared to gasoline–even when hypothetical land-use change emissions are included. By displacing hydrocarbon substances like aromatics in gasoline, ethanol also helps reduce emissions of air toxics, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, and exhaust hydrocarbons.

 

 

[92merc]

10 hours ago, jpd80 said:

The way it was explained to me was that without the ethanol subsidy, the government would be covering corn grower losses anyway, so this way they make something and we’re seen to be helping reduce CO2 and supporting farmers. I wonder how much the subsidy actually helps these days, may be worth another look under the hood to see if it’s a “rock painting” exercise….

Except the process of making ethanol creates more CO2 that we're saving by burning ethanol...

[92merc]

9 hours ago, Trader 10 said:

This article is outdated and incorrectly infers that the “ethanol subsidy” ( blenders credit) is still in effect. In fact, it ended several years ago. There aren’t any current subsidies being paid to corn growers, ethanol producers, or blenders of ethanol. I believe there are some subsidies in effect for advanced biofuels but that doesn’t include ethanol from corn.

But now, the government is giving huge grants directly to ethanol producers to try to do carbon capture.  My state has one of the biggest projects in the country in motion.

 

CO2 from ethanol plants in other states want to pipe their CO2 to my state and pump it into some of our pore space.  A lot of people not happy with out of state companies pushing eminent domain to run a pipe across the farmers land.  Pore space owners are not getting compensated well for C02 storage.  In a way, the process is very similar to fracking an oil well.  The greenies claim fracking is so bad for the environment.  But yet, pumping CO2 down a well is just fine?  Get real...

 

Plus, a coal plant next to the proposed pore space wells, is getting a huge grant from both the feds and the state to try CO2 capture on their plant and pump into pore space.  The coal plant was going to be shut down due to lack of profitability.  It's old.  But another company swooped in and bought it, just so it could get the huge grants and test CO2 capture technology on the governments dime.

 

A lot of grant money being thrown around.  I'd rather they shut coal plants down and put in small modular nuclear reactors, and natural gas plants.  Put the money there instead.  They're really not fixing the problem.  They're just pushing the problem to another state and not my problem any more.