Brazilian sugar cane ethanol is much cheaper than oil. From the article: "Super-efficient Brazil now sells ethanol at the equivalent of $25 dollars a barrel, less than half the cost of crude."
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex32398.htm

If only the corn lobby could be bypassed to allow the reduction of tarriffs on imported ethanol then we could diversify our gasoline supplies. A regular gasoline engine can burn up to 25% ethanol without modification, why not do so and save a few bucks?

American Ethanol has been subsidized and protected for decades. It currently costs almost twice that of Brazilian Ethanol when subsidies are taken into account. The fact is, corn has a solar energy conversion efficiency of only 2% while sugarcane can muster 8%, not to mention sugarcane can grow all year long at the equator. Stop wasting effort on corn and import some sugarcane!

There are drawbacks, of course, American Ethanol producers will eventually go out of business, ultimately harming American corn growers, and fuel economy is noticeably less the greater the percentage of Ethanol.

The benefits are Brazil and other sugarcane producers will face higher prices for their sugar and Ethanol exports, helping to pull millions out of poverty. Oh, and Americans get access to more reliable, diversified, and cheaper fuel sources.

6/5/2006 6:02:15 PM

what kind of emissions does ethanol leave?

i only ask cause in the end it says the more ethanol, the less gas mileage, so i mean if its cheaper, and better for the environment, the gas mileage thing is offset

but if not, i dont think its worth it

6/5/2006 6:22:59 PM

I dont know what the deal with ethanols emissions are, and if the components in the fuel are detrimental to water quality or what not, but from a global warming aspect, ethanol is a better choice than oil.

Ethanol, derived from corn is already within our carbon cycle. We can burn as much as we want and the net result is zero. When ever we pump and burn fossil fuels, we release new (previously stored) carbon into the system, the additive effect being more global warming.

6/5/2006 6:48:40 PM

^^ Ethanol is currently a required addition to gasoline, supposedly to cut down on pollution.
That said, I seriously doubt it is beneficial much beyond 5%. It will not result in greater pollution, even though the energy density is slightly less, because it is missing contaminants often found in gasoline.

Of course, yes, some others point out that Ethanol usage dramatically cuts down on CO2 emissions, but to me this feature pales in comparison to its lower costs.

6/5/2006 8:40:20 PM

the only problem with using sugar cane ethanol

it makes everything smell like donuts

wait

thats not a problem

6/5/2006 9:02:40 PM

Estimates vary, but it's likely ethanol would have no effect on global warming.

Factoring in government subsidies, ethanol is as expensive, if not moreso, than gasoline.

6/5/2006 9:03:56 PM

Pyro, did you read the first post? American Corn based Ethanol costs more than gasoline. Sugarcane based Ethanol is sizeably cheaper than gasoline. The problem is government restrictions against its importation.

6/5/2006 9:31:28 PM

thats the same reason they use high fructose corn syrup in everything rather than sugar. alcohol powered cars are less efficient than gasoline cars. though there are many bad sides of using it to power cars, such as issues with use in cold weather, transporting it to the pumps and the farm land used for sugar cane.

6/5/2006 9:37:15 PM

^ I hate to be contradictory, but I am not suggesting you go out and by an Ethanol enabled car so you can burn 100% Ethanol. That would be unnecessary and would suffer some of the problems you point out. However, upping it from 5% to 20% doesn't suffer the drawbacks, reduces oil consumption, and saves money.

Brazil is producing Ethanol for $25 a barrel. This is without subsidies (Brazil abandoned subsidies back in the 1990s) because the subsidies are not necessary.

What it does do is mandate that 25% of all gasoline sold must be Ethanol. This requirement gets the Ethanol industry through periods of low oil prices (less than $25 a barrel) because at these times Ethanol is no longer naturally cheaper, so it drags gasoline prices up slightly to cover the Ethanol component. But during times of $70 oil, this requirement is obviously unnecessary.

But you are right about America. American Ethanol is expensive and subsidy laden and should be put to rest.

[Edited on June 5, 2006 at 9:55 PM. Reason : .,.]

6/5/2006 9:52:40 PM

do you really think there is enough sugar cane to produce the ethanol we would need to fuel our vehicles at the rate we consume fossil fuels already??

the reason there are so many different avenues being explored for alternative fuels is because no one natural resource has been found that will be able to supply all the fuel we need (at least no one resource that there has been a viable production process for). there are tons of different lignocellulosic sources being explored for biofuel production, sugar cane and corn are only two that get the most media attention.

6/5/2006 10:09:16 PM

Quote :

"do you really think there is enough sugar cane to produce the ethanol we would need to fuel our vehicles at the rate we consume fossil fuels already??"

Hmm, that doesn't sound like a very good reason to restrict the importation of Ethanol. A little competition between energy sources would be a good thing. In the end the best technology wins and so does America's consumers.

6/5/2006 10:33:25 PM

the problem is, with the sudden increase in demand if that were to happen, the prices of brazilian ethanol would skyrocket, so it wouldn't be as much of a bargain as you think.

6/5/2006 10:34:00 PM

Of course. And the difference (going from $25 to $50, say) is pure profit for Brazillian Ethanol producers. Plenty of incentive to ramp up production as quickly as possible, something Brazil can do that America cannot. It will also cause the world price of sugar to skyrocket, boosting employment and helping lift millions out of poverty. I'll also tell you this: I'd rather make Brazillians rich than Saudis.

[Edited on June 5, 2006 at 11:03 PM. Reason : .,.]

6/5/2006 11:01:08 PM

this could have been useful 2 months ago when i was writing a paper on ethanol vs. gasoline

6/5/2006 11:06:50 PM

uhm

research?

Quote :

"12-05-03 "

other countries do dates differently

but any way i read that date

this article was around when you were doing your paper

[Edited on June 5, 2006 at 11:13 PM. Reason : `]

6/5/2006 11:12:49 PM

May 3, 1912? that shits old.

6/6/2006 12:33:41 AM

march 5 1912 is almost 2 months older

6/6/2006 12:37:07 AM

yeah, but mine is DoD compliant.

6/6/2006 12:54:05 AM

Quote :

"Plenty of incentive to ramp up production as quickly as possible, something Brazil can do that America cannot."

There is one slight ecological problem with this. The same climate that is ideal for sugarcane also happens to be ideal for rainforests. As the demand for sugarcane grows, the pressure to deforest Brazil to grow the lucrative sugar crop will increase substantially. With the increased European demand for biofuels, they've already noted that this trend was occuring. Sure, you can push the Brazilian government to be more "responsible" with its growth, but limiting cropland will only drive up sugarcane prices further and thus erode the financial age.

6/6/2006 9:41:39 AM

i don't know that the "best technology" would be winning... as far as i have heard brazil has not updated or attempted to improve the efficiency of their process to create ethanol from sugar cane

i would say the best glucose source was winning... sugar cane undoubtedly has more 6C sugars than other materials available to us in the US. now if we could utilize a waste source such as pulp and paper plant waste material (don't have an enzyme to break down the 5C chain sugars.. yet) that would be a win-win situation because we wouldn't need to acquire our media source from a material that already has some market value.

6/6/2006 9:43:23 AM

get rid of subsidies. let the market decide

6/6/2006 10:08:35 AM

again, this is a short term solution

what we need is to develop enzymes that convert yardwaste and everyday biomass garbage into ethanol

6/6/2006 11:09:12 AM

Because someone asked, the combustion of ethanol produces precursors for PAN. Gas produces the precursors for ozone and various nasty NOx compounds. All combustion produces COx. Switching to ethonol from a pollution standpoint just trades one set of emissions for another. Google can give you all the details of the impacts of these various chemicals.

6/6/2006 12:46:28 PM

Quote :

"i don't know that the "best technology" would be winning"

Well, I was only going for the quick buck. In reality we could not just cut the tarriff on Ethanol but do the same with sugarcane itself. It can be shipped fairly efficiently in bulk to Florida or Texas for production of Ethanol. I bet American companies could do a better job producing Ethanol than Brazil's corrupt state.

6/6/2006 1:50:54 PM

^^Ethanol keeps the carbon cycle neutral. Instead of burning up hydrocarbons of buried plant matter from millions of years ago, ethanol is made from atmospheric CO2 and sunlight. So there is no net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

But yes, any hydrocarbon fuel in a combustion engine is gonna produce some nasty pollutants lik NOx and CO.

6/7/2006 4:10:24 AM

^ Do you have any data/links on the efficiency and time scale of the balance of that cycle. I'd like to read about that.

6/7/2006 11:01:27 AM

Quote :

"what we need is to develop enzymes that convert yardwaste and everyday biomass garbage into ethanol"

I envision a world where each home is a microcosm of sustainability and reuse, at least on a practical level. Homes made of stone to be more efficient (less AC/heat needed), small gardens for food needs, water barrels to catch water off the roof, solar panels, wind mills, etc. The idea is the market will adapt to cover our needs, but I think the human desire for money and power is too juxtaposed against sustainability ideals for society to survive.

6/7/2006 11:24:20 AM

Quote :

"The idea is the market will adapt to cover our needs, but I think the human desire for money and power is too juxtaposed against sustainability ideals for society to survive."

Well, I don't know about power, but in the market people get money by giving people what they want. If people decide they want ultra-sustainable living space then someone is going to get fabulously wealthy selling it to them.

6/7/2006 4:11:32 PM

Yes, but sustainability and profitability sit on opposite sides of the fence. Why would a consumer want to pay 100x the cost of garbage service for a machine that reduces his waste to near nothing?

This will require a policy change.

6/7/2006 5:12:09 PM

Hmm, I thought you said society was not going to survive without change?

You must have some idea what problem is going to arrise that must be solved. Give me a scenario and I'll tell you how the market would handle it.

An example: Society is going to die because some resource has become scarce and must be recycled. Easy, scarcity tends to drive up prices for the scarce items. As such, since people "seek wealth" and are usually willing to do anything to get it then they will act accordingly, using less scarce resources or recycling after it has been used.

For example, assume it is aluminum we run out of and the price goes up 10 fold. Suddenly, A canned coke which used to cost $1.00 now costs $1.45 (I heard somewhere a single aluminum can was worth about 5 cents nowadays). Well, I suspect people will still drink soda, the stuff is addictive. But after they drink it their behavior will change. Suddenly, instead of only getting 5 cents (or less) back for every can returned you get 50 cents

Who wouldn't recycle every last can if, whenever you did so, they handed you cold hard cash afterwards? You are going to have to be careful so your neighbors don't steal your cans for recycling. If the price of raw materials goes up, especially if it goes up several magnitudes, then recycling will be all the rage. Companies will compete to pay you to pick up your recyclable materials.

The problem with recycling, however, is that the price of raw materials has been falling for the past 500 years. So, while recycling was popular back in 1600 England, it doesn't make so much sense here in the 21st century. If this trend reverses then the market will adapt to fill the need. But as long as there is no need it doesn't make sense to conclude the market will be incapable of filling it.

6/7/2006 11:04:51 PM