Talk:Ethanol fuel/Archive 4

2007 Archive

Neutrality Bias

I have reviewed the article, and removed some of the perhaps less - objective content.

Spice detail is that the DOE agrees with the sceptics: the net emission of CO2 is about the same for bioethanol as it is for petrolem. Sikkema 20:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Originally too much against ethanol now the article is too much in favor of ethanol. 71.163.29.45 16:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree to an extent. I think the individual parts of the article are neutral, but the overall article fails to emphasize the major problems with producing Ethanol. I would suggest adding a section that specifically covers the controvery involved with the production and use of the fuel (probably just above where the environment section is now). SarcasticDwarf 16:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I read this article couple months ago and it literaly went from wall to wall. Currently there is absolutely no mention of the economics of E85 (price vs mpg) or anything that deals with the large corn subsidies and subsequent maize inflation due to ethanol.

The thing is, the creation of ethanol from corn seems to be mostly an American idea, based on the subsidies that are in America, and seems problematic on very many fronts. Likewise the E85 standard is an American standard fuel mix, and further more has its own article anyway. The wikipedia is supposed to be not a US-centric project per se.WolfKeeper 19:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Should the article have a subarticle on Ethanol in the United States? SarcasticDwarf 14:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a few references in this article dedicated to the Energy Balance in the production of ethanol fuel. Is there room in this article for a Cost Balance? Hydronics 06:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I will attempt to start rewriting the article over the next week or so. It will mostly involve re-arranging the sections and creating continuity between sections. I might also drop a few of the sections. SarcasticDwarf 14:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The part people ignore about Brazilian Ethanol

Indeed, it must be understood that the barrels of oil imported are used to produce the ethanol. The energy needs to come from somewhere.Sikkema 20:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Brazil is "energy independant".
Some politicians use this to imply that Brazil does not use oil. That couldn't be farther from the truth.
All it means is that they do not IMPORT Oil.

Brazil still uses Oil for over 85% of their fuel.
Brazil is the second largest Oil producing nation in Latin America, right behind Venezuela.
Brazil produces roughly 302,000 barrels of ethanol per day, but this pales in comparison to the 2,100,000+ barrels of Oil produced every day

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Brazil/Oil.html

So what? AFAIK they can increase production and export ethanol just fine, it's just that (for example) America is refusing to buy it, because they have a large corn lobby that demand subsidies.WolfKeeper 12:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Brazil Leads production?

RFA shows the U.S. passing Brazil in 2005 [1]

Numbers may vary. :-) --hdante 16:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Unlikely. Brazilian ethanol production based on sugarcane is more efficient and 50% cheaper, according to the brazilian finance minister, who based his statements on Brazil's 30 years of research.

“Our costs are 50 per cent lower and the quality of the energy source is higher than the ethanol made from corn in America,” Brazil’s finance minister Guido Mantega said. “So we can have more co-operation with America if they open the possibility for more imports from Brazil of ethanol and other agricultural products.” read it here

--Pinnecco 09:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Good article candidate 2007-07-12

Although this article has covered quite a lot of ground, I cannot pass it due to the many issues evident. The most obvious would be the cleanup and neutrality tags, but also there are many unsourced statements and one or two sentence paragraphs. Secondly, many of the citations are just URLs lying within the text, and should be fixed up to comply with standards. Lists should be converted into prose where possible, and the external links and see also sections need some serious slimming down in size. I would usually put articles on hold with pending issues, but there are far too many here to bother, so I feel that I have no choice but to fail this article. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the "good article" guidelines yet, but I do know that Ethanol Fuel production is a pivotal issue in the past, present, and future. As such, it seems to me that simply rejecting the entire article as "not good" for whatever reason is counter-productive to informational aims, whether they be "breaking news" or "historical". I'll read the "guidelines". Meanwhile, I think it's a mistake to arbitrarily delete this very important article because of any sort of "policy" or marginal breach of such policy.

It is not that the article is going to be deleted, it is saying that it is not a good article. The biggest issue with the article right now is that there is no clearly defined structure for the content. It tends to jump around and overlap too much. That is what I am working on fixing this weekend. SarcasticDwarf 13:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh... I understand, and agree. I look forward to reading your rewrite, as I realize it is no small undertaking and I'm always looking for "good" examples of how these articles should be written. If you are interested, I have found at least one external article that provides a "good" summary of the inherent problems with ethanol fuel production. I can either provide you with the URL now, or I can try to present the data in this article after your rewrite. The latter approach seems counter-productive to the "clean-up" issues at hand. So I would prefer to let you review the data for yourself, and then include it as you wish. But it's up to you. Let me know if you want the URL, and thanks so much for responding. David Kendall 01:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Replacement of petroleum change

I changed Bioethanol to ethanol. Bioethanol specifically refers to cellulosic ethanol. This section, however, was refering to corn. Justin Velez 16:57, 18 July 2007

(comment)

Bio ethanol should refer to any ethanol produced from biological sources, cellulositic ethanol is of biological origin as it converts biomass to ethanol by chemical means. There is also synthetic ethanol produced by catalytic reaction from petroleum base stocks, and synthetic ethanol produced from catalytic reaction of producer gas generated from gassified biomass. In the latter case there is a question which type it should be considered. The distinction in my mind, should be if the carbon source is fossile based (coal, petroleum, natural gas, tar sands etc) or from recent biological fixing of carbon such as straw grass or wood waste. If that definition was used, synthetic ethanol (not using yeast fermentation etc.) from bio mass would be properly classed as a bio-ethanol fuel. The proper distinction above between cellulosic ethanol and what you refer to as bio-ethanol should be Microbial Ethanol, vs chemical methods of ethanol from biomass such as acid hydrolysis , and enzymatic hydrolysis which convert the larger polysaccharides to fermentable sugars .—Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.142 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 25 July 2007

An article update

I've made some updates to the article, but have refrained from any further work awaiting further discussion. In particular, what I've done is:

- cutting the lead which was too long, it should be one paragraph only. Moved rest to Overview section

- adding short History section

- the bit about energy balance/efficiency is about Economics, not about the environment. Moved this to Economics

- air pollution and greenhouse gases are two different things

- hydrated ethanol and anhydrous ethanol are two different things, only the latter was mentioned

- updating some info and adding a number of cites, foremost the recent UN report, which wasn't even mentioned.

- removing a few sentences appearing twice in the article, leaving them in one place only

However, this article suffers from a number of things. The text sometimes leaves the impression of a discussion between two persons, one pro one con. The cites are particularly bad, many have no titles, and there are partisan sites and blog sites. Partisan sites should be avoided and blog cites are not WP:RS. There are many studies and journals to choose from instead. Lastly, this article is missing information about (a) suggested environmental impact, such as water requirements and increased soil erosion compared to 'traditional' farming (b) what infrastructure is needed to bring biofuel to the consumer, and (c) important policy issues which may have an impact on the future of biofuels, such as EU's biofuel target for 2010. -- Steve Hart 00:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve, I appreciate your attempt to improve the article but gather that you are quite an inexperienced editor. Who said the lead section should only be one paragraph long? Please see WP:LEAD. The new history section contains no references -- please see WP:REF. I could go on addressing the inadequacy of many of the changes you have made, but there are too many... so I am reverting what you have done. As for the recent UN report mentioned just add this new info where you can... -- Johnfos 02:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD is a style guideline. Granted, the length of the lead is related to the article. But that is not important. What I take issue with is you one-click reverting edits and citations I used hours to put in. You are required to review each change on its own. Edits you agreed with should have been left in place instead of asking me to do those edits all over again. I did a save between each edit so that each change could be easily reverted with the undo feature. You are free to disagree with my text edits, but you have also reintroduced dead links which was updated and paragraphs which appears twice in the article. As for you comments about my experience, I'll just say WP:AGF. Based on your presumption I could say WP:BITE, but I won't. -- Steve Hart 22:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The section that deals with fuel milage is also incorrect. Miles per gallon does not track directly with the energy content of the fuel on a per gallon basis. The most glaring example of this is that although E85 has 71% of the fuel energy of gasoline on a volume basis, typical fuel milage reductions are not the 34% you would expect but typically near 15%. In a more optimized engine for ethanol fuel mileage per gallon can actually exceed the fuel milage per gallon on gasoline, as is the case with the flex fuel Saab.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.142 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 25 July 2007

the lead

I invite editors to review the lead which I wrote (was reverted), which I think, while not the greatest, at least is more concise than the current one:

Ethanol fuel is ethanol (ethyl alcohol), the same type of alcohol found in alcoholic beverages. It is mainly used as a biofuel alternative to gasoline, and is, as of 2007, most widely used in cars in Brazil. Because it is cheap, easy to manufacture and process, and can be made from common biomaterials, it is seen as a promising alternative to fossil fuel consumption. At the same time concerns have been raised about the possible negative impact on soil erosion, deforestation, air pollution, food prices and freshwater availability.

My opinion: the current lead goes on at length about car fuel, refers to US issues instead of taking the worldview, and without citation calls it "highly respected" which I believe is a statement quite a few will disagree with (I have no opinion). I think 'promising' is a less loaded word. I welcome other editor's comments on this matter. -- Steve Hart 22:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have made a couple of changes to the lead which may alleviate some of your concerns. Most important of these is the removal of the last paragraph. -- Johnfos 01:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Better. You should also redo the dead links++ that were fixed, which, as I mentioned above, was lost in your revert. You could also add the UN cite since this assessment would likely have wide ramifications, I won't bother putting it somewhere where you don't want it. -- Steve Hart 22:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Common Crops Associated with Ethanol Production

Why did Ghetsmith tag this section as unsourced on July 8th 2007? The information in the table, except for the sweet sorghum data, is from Nature 444 (Dec. 7, 2006): 670-654, as stated below the table. Several references are given for the sweet sorghum data. Should this be formatted differently? Mbomford 16:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I also wonder why Ghetsmith removed the metric column from the table. Was this due to concern that the same data were presented in both metric and US measurements (liters per hectare and gallons per acre)? If duplication was the concern I think that the metric column should be restored and the column using the US system of measurement should be deleted to reflect Wikipedia's international audience.Mbomford 16:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Crop yields are generally presented as an amount per unit area (i.e. bushels per acre, or kg/ha), with the time factor assumed to be a year or a growing season. Perhaps it is more correct, as Ghetsmith has done, to present ethanol yield as gallons per acre per year, but it is not standard practice. Comments? Mbomford 16:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Other problems

Producing Ethanol from corn encourages larger farms to meet demand; the farms use chemical fertilizers that create run-off that contains nitrates that polute our rivers. The larger farms cause deforestation in third world countries.

There might also be concerns about the corporatization of agricultural land and the effect on farmers of dealing with commodity pricing changes. Derek Andrews 15:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The article currently cites "Support for biofuels could keep petroleum prices high in the USA" as a problem. Many might argue that high gas prices are a good thing Derek Andrews 15:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

recent edits by Johnfos

I disagree with Johnfos that the following two paragraphs were confused. There appears to be good information in there. maybe we can work to make it clearer. The first appears clear and has a reference for the contentious point:

Only about 5% of the fossil energy required to produce ethanol from corn in the United States is obtained from non-US petroleum. Current (2006) United States production methods obtain the rest of the fossil energy from domestic coal and natural gas. Even if the energy balance were negative, US production involves mostly domestic fuels such as natural gas and coal so the need for non-US petroleum would be reduced. Developed regions like the United States and Europe, and increasingly the developing nations of Asia, mainly India and China, consume much more petroleum and natural gas than they extract from their territory, becoming dependent upon foreign suppliers as a result.

The second, I agree, could use a reference but appears apropos to me:

Similar to the research done on biodiesel, making ethanol from algae has the higher potential production efficiency, and unlike more complex organisms, the time it takes to improve energy output for algae is much shorter.

Any thoughts? Pdbailey 00:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

First up: the link for the citation apparently moved, and the name of the article and such isn't given. Here's a suggested replacement:

Farrell, Alexander E., Richard J. Plevin, Brian T. Turner, Andrew D. Jones, Michael O’Hare, and Daniel M. Kammen. "Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals", Science, Vol. 311, pp. 506-508, January 27 2006, via ethanol.org. See also: the article's supporting online material, via sciencemag.org. Retrieved on August 16 2007.

The first paragraph removed in the wiki article focuses on what I'd call a domestic U.S. "energy security" issue, not an environmental issue, and is thus misplaced in the wiki article's "Environment" section. I understand what the paragraph is trying to communicate, and I think its general premise is not among the many ethanol controversies: ethanol production uses much more energy from non-petrol inputs than petrol inputs, and in the U.S., the majority of the non-petrol inputs are domestically supplied. (Science says "All studies indicated that current corn ethanol technologies are much less petroleum-intensive than gasoline but have greenhouse gas emissions similar to those of gasoline.") But the wording is somewhat inaccurate (maybe "confused"), and the figure slightly misstated from the study. Mainly though, I think it's a US political/energy security issue, not an environmental issue.

To give specific problems, the Science article does not distinguish between countries of origin for energy inputs; characterizing petroleum as from outside the US, and natural gas and coal as from the US, isn't supported or entirely accurate. (E.g., maybe 1/6th of US natural gas is from Canada?) The wording in the wiki article misstated the analysis from Science: the 5% refers to 5% of the energy contained in the final ethanol product, not 5% of the energy from fossil fuels used as inputs, so more like 7%. Also, data were used with several caveats in the supplemental materials; I'd call it "An estimated approximate 7% of..." or something. It could be bolstered with "from a six-study meta-analysis in the journal Science so it doesn't sound dubious.

The second paragraph that was removed needs a source. I don't clearly understand its meaning, but without a source, its clarity isn't important. -Agyle 07:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This article recently failed as a Good Article candidate, and I'm not surprised. There are quite a few problems in the second half relating to POV and poor quality, and the tags at the start of the article reflect this. Some material there is confused, unreferenced, repetitious, poorly structured, or off topic. If there is intransigence to making gradual improvements then I guess the article will stay as it is. -- Johnfos 11:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Johnfos, I think gradual improvements can be made by improving rather than cutting in most cases. However, after some additional consideration, I propose that the whole section on alge based production be deleted because it's largely speculative and as such, uninteresting. As for the first paragraph Johnfos removed, I suggest that it be changed to the following:

A frequent rationale for shifting to ethanol is improved energy security, a topic which often regards the ability to produce energy within the country so as to prevent a loss of energy supply either during a time of war or due to arbitrary actions of foreign powers[2]. Because ethanol fuel reduces petroleum use by about 95% , it succeeds in reducing dependence on foreign powers for energy supply, this is because most of the energy used in production is from domestically available coal, natural gas, and solar energy.

Comments? Pdbailey 23:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Pdbailey, that applies from a US view, and should mention that; the reasoning may not apply to an oil-rich or coal-poor nation. Also, a statement like "a frequent rationale," should supply a source that says it's a frequent rationale. Here's how I'd change it, with more background to support the shift from foreign to domestic use, and less explanation of energy security (readers can read about that elsewhere if needed):

One rationale given for extensive ethanol production in the U.S. is its benefit to energy security, by shifting the need for some foreign-produced oil to domestically-produced energy sources.[3] Production of ethanol requires significant energy, but current U.S. production derives most of that energy from coal and natural gas, rather than oil.[4] Because 60% of oil consumed in the U.S. is imported, compared to a net surplus of coal and just 16% of natural gas (2006 figures),[5], the displacement of oil-based fuels to ethanol produces a net shift from foreign to domestic U.S. energy sources.

(Note that the references are just links, not full-fledged citations with authors etc.) -Agyle 09:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Agyle, I agree your version has the benefits that you mentioned and prefer it to the previous one that I wrote for the same reasons. Pdbailey 16:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What 2006 USDA study?

The article contains this in the sentence, without citation: "A 2006 report by the U.S. Department Agriculture compared the methodologies used by a number of researchers on this subject and found that the majority of research showed that the energy balance for ethanol is positive." Does anyone know about or have a link to the report/study? this page lists a few usda ethanol studies, including a 2006 study on sugar-based ethanol, but is not like the one described. -Agyle 08:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC) "A 2006 report by the U.S. Department Agriculture compared the methodologies used by a number of researchers on this subject and found that the majority of research showed that the energy balance for ethanol is positive ('1.24 for corn ethanol)." Okay, so we have a citation and a link to the USDA study now, but I just read it and I'm sorry to say it does not contain the statement attributed to it, or any real discussion of energy balance. It does talk about how much energy is used, on average, to create a gallon of ethanol, and what that costs in dollars, and if you knew hoe much energy comes out of a gallon, and converted everything to a single unit you could work the math out... but that's coming pretty close to original research, and ough not to be attributed to this study, in any case. I have a feeling the orginal editor was refering to a different study, though-- this one doesn't include any thing like a comparison of research methodologies.Stevecudmore (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Replacement of petroleum

The energy gain when making ethanol from corn is so low that it would be uneconomic to make fuel ethanol if only ethanol could be used as the energy source. Thus an important motivation for making fuel ethanol in the US (and many other countries) is reduction of imported petroleum. This is pointed out in the discussion above and should be added in some form to the article. I suggest slight modification as follows (the electrical energy could come from wind, nuclear, etc.)and insert just before the algae entry under the heading 'Replacement of petroleum'.

One rationale given for extensive ethanol production in the U.S. is its benefit to energy security, by shifting the need for some foreign-produced oil to domestically-produced energy sources.[6] Production of ethanol requires significant energy, but current U.S. production derives most of that energy from coal, natural gas and other sources, rather than oil.[7] Because 60% of oil consumed in the U.S. is imported, compared to a net surplus of coal and just 16% of natural gas (2006 figures),[8], the displacement of oil-based fuels to ethanol produces a net shift from foreign to domestic U.S. energy sources.

Dan Pangburn 11:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The energy gain when making ethanol from corn is 67% according to the USDA and many other studies. The Pimental study was refuted as soon as it was published and certainly should not be the sole citation for the claim that the energy balance is negative.

http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/net_energy_balance.pdf

Greenba (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

production process

Repeated distillation does not work to dehydrate because of the formation of the azeotrope. The starch in corn or wheat needs to be converted to sugar before it can be fermented. This is done by enzymes the specifics being proprietary with the various companies because of economic competition. The non starch parts of corn and wheat remain after the starch has fermented and are extracted and used for other purposes. References to research on ethanol production specifics is more appropriately in the ethanol article. Dan Pangburn 12:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Critics...

"Critics argue that ethanol is a fancy way of using solar power. The processing and production, as well as burning of ethanol would not significantly improve carbon emissions over the current use of gasoline. Instead, critics propose the widespread adoption of battery electric vehicles (zero emissions vehicles) combined with increased use of nuclear power and solar power."

This paragraph is begun by a statement that is not only dumbfounding, but seemingly is not even slightly explained by what follows. "...a fancy way of using solar power."? I also think there deserves to be some mention of the green-washing of ethanol in the US, Brazil, and other nations, where ethanol is toted as a "green" alternative fuel, despite this statement being flawed in almost every way (increased natural gas dependence, low (or negative) net energy result, increased dependence on high-input, petro-dependent mono culture agriculture techniques, and an increasing emphasis the products of land usage being funneled to the richer nations, to name a few). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veloce (talk • contribs) 00:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Fossil fuels are just a fancy way of using solar power, too. A bunch of plants photosynthisise energy from the sun, some dinosaurs eat them, they die, are buried under a few million tons of rock for a few million years, turn to oil, get pumped out, refined to petroleum, burnt in our car. If anything, biodiesel is "a LESS fancy way of using solar power." Cuts out the whole dinosaur factor, which is really just frills and gimmicks. Stevecudmore (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

status neutrality dispute / cleanup october 2007

Exactly what content is currently disputed and what should be cleaned up in this article? Suggestions please. V8rik 19:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the POV tag as a result of persistent anti-ethanol edits by David Kendall. As I understand it the cleanup issues relate to repeated material, poor sectioning of material, etc. Please see earlier discussion on this page and in the last archive. The article also failed a GA review a few months ago and that review may be of interest too. Johnfos 23:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• I really want to invest some of my time to help improve this article, the latest issue of national geographic contains a great overview article that can be used to check facts but I am not going to read through three archives on this article, this talk page AND a GA nomination (this still is a hobby!) to find out what exactly is wrong with the current article. So for now I propose that the disputed tag only concerns the section on economy with in particular refs 73 to 76. Ref 74 is an entry to a newsgroup and should be discredited as a reference. The others represent a very critical view on ethanol as a fuel but invariable in this article you will have proponents and opponents. This part should belong in criticism. The section in economics on ethanol fuel energy balance will be absorbed in that article. Basically that would eliminate the need for the chapter on economy. Will this work to have the tag removed for now? V8rik 20:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate that you've found a National Geographic article which you are keen to use. Is it in the Sep or Oct issue?

I will make some gradual improvements which should help with NPOV. The first of these will concern the lead section. I will restore the version that was discussed on this talk page and generally agreed to. Johnfos 21:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, some edits down the road. The lead and the economics section have been dealt with. I have streamlined the headers. How about removing those tags!. If someone still objects that someone can put up new tags and explain - preferably in a new talk page section (we close this one) - why the tags should be there so that we can deal with new issues instead of guessing what the old issues were. Comments please. V8rik 20:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing some work on the article each day and will remove the tags as soon as I can. Is someone able to help clean up the reference list? Author, title, and date should be included. Johnfos 23:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• tags are removed, this discussion is closed V8rik 20:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

cheap?

The second line now states that ethanol fuel is cheap. I tend to disagree, the NG (October issue) present the following figures: US retail price one gallon of gasoline 3.03 dollar and E85 ethanol (the energy equivalent of that gallon) 3.71 dollars. So it is more expensive than gasoline. I propose that the cheap statement is scrapped. I will get to including the figures in the article V8rik 21:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have added data in section on fuel economy and removed the reference to cheap in the lead V8rik 19:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Carbon capture and storage

Is there any literature out there on the possibility of carbon capture and storage with ethanol fuel production. Since CO2 that is fairly pure and cool (as compared to flue gas) is a natural by-product of fermentation, the capture portion would be essentially free. --agr 16:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It is captured now and sold. Dan Pangburn 03:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Confused text

I have removed this long and confused piece of text from the Greenhouse gas abatement section of the article:

A recent ten-year forecast of ethanol production by the places 2017 corn ethanol production at 12 billion US gallons and growing at only 2% per year. This estimate, together with a parameter publishing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), indicates that this near-maximum level of ethanol production will abate GHG emissions by 0.13% (~1/10 of 1%) of current US GHG emissions. However, this does not hold for all greenhouse gases. Another study has suggested that replacement of 100% petroleum fuel with E85 (a fuel mixture comprised of 85% ethanol and 15% petroleum) would significantly increase ozone levels, thereby increasing photochemical smog and aggravating medical problems such as asthma. This value reflects increases in corn area and the use of 30% of the corn crop for ethanol. It also apparently takes into account anticipated improvements in corn yields and ethanol production. The PNAS value is a 12% reduction in greenhouse gas emission relative to the "net emissions of production and combustion of an energetically equivalent amount of gasoline."

The January 2006 Science article from UC Berkeley's ERG, estimated this parameter to be 13% after reviewing a large number of studies. However, in a correction to that article releases shortly after publication, they reduce the estimated value to 7.4%. None of the other values needed to complete the calculation are controversial.

• I have separated air pollution and GHG abatement into two sections so this issue should be solved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V8rik (talk • contribs) 20:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a cleanup tag as the section clearly needs more work. What does "together with a parameter publishing in the Proceedings" and "puts the figures on 22% less" actually mean? Johnfos 11:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Just did another cleanup. 22% less simply means 22% less GHG emissions compared to gasoline V8rik 20:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, V8rik, there is an improvement, and I've removed the tag. Johnfos 21:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Food vs. Fuel: Misconception

Since the remnants of ethanol (and bio-diesel) production serves as feed, why then does the question of using farmland for either fuel or food come up?

E3 Biofuels (Mead, Nb.) offers a video of contented cattle chewing distillers grain mixed with corn. E3's vertical integration is remarkable. It uses the corn to make fuel, feed, ammonia and methane that powers the distillery. There is no food vs fuel debate. The grains more than satisfy both requirements.

If sugar has more value as a fuel than as a food, then could brewing be a step in the right direction towards reducing empty calories in the diet? At the grocer's, everything from soup to nuts can contain added sugar--canned vegetables, sauce, gravy, pasta dishes, even roast beef. Why would it be a bad thing to have that sugar fueling the car instead of hanging onto people's thighs?Fissilerockets 21:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced tables

I've moved these two tables from the Sweden section of the article. They clearly don't belong there, and need some more work. I would eventually like to see them in an Ethanol fuel in the European Union article. I've written to the editor who placed the tables to discuss these things, and am awaiting a reply... Johnfos 21:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Bioethanol production (milj. liter*)
Country	2006	2005
Germany	431	165
Spain	402	303
France	250	144
Sweden	140	153
Italy	128	8
Poland	120	64
Hungary	34	35
Lithuania	18	8
Netherlands	15	8
Czech Republic	15	0
Latvia	12	12
Finland	0	13
Total	1 565	813
* 100 l bioethanol = 79,62 kg

Consumption of Bioethanol (GWh)
No	Country	2006	2005
1	Germany*	3 573	1 682
2	Sweden*	1 895	1 681
3	France	1 747	871
4	Spain	1 332	1 314
6	Poland	611	329
7	UK	561	502
11	Finland	9	0
27	EU	10 210	6 481
*Total includes vegetable oil in Germany and biogas in Sweden 225 GWh (2006) and 160 GWh (2005)

Johnfos, I replied on my home page. I make here a new suggestion. Thanks. Watti Renew 12:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest a ethanol fuel in Europe article and merge some content. V8rik 16:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The name Ethanol fuel in the European Union, as Johnfos suggested, is consistent with some other RE -article names. The data of Europe should remain in this article for not to hide information of Europe. With this restriction I suggest either Biofuels in the European Union or Bioethanol in the European Union. Information here is available for it. However, it is not a valid excuse to delete information from the article. The new article could include more data for example of the companies. Thank you Johnfos for your kind proposal. At moment I have no time to start one. Both of you can start, if you like. May I correct the errors in the table above? Watti Renew 17:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Watti, go ahead and correct the errors in the Tables above. I'm surprised that the units for both the new tables is GWh: isn't this a measure of electrical energy? And please don't be too concerned about whether the tables appear in this article or another one. Johnfos 09:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Numbers in the tables are now correct. Table ref: Biofuels barometer 2007 - EurObserv’ER Systèmes solaires Le journal des énergies renouvelables n° 179, s. 63-75, 5/2007 Watti Renew 14:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Cellulose as a major component of branches and stems

I made a small but important change in the article lead, saying that cellulose fibers are part of plant cell walls as this is technically more correct than how it was stated. --Snowman frosty (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Land use section disputed

Content in the land use section is disputed see: Ethanol_fuel#Land_use. But can anyone remember why? Better have it removed and start afresh. If you still find it disputed please specify why V8rik (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

V8rik, it's in the archives (first one, see the top of this page) and does not appear to apply now, good catch! Pdbailey (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, for your intervention, case closed! V8rik (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Mention Controversy about Fuel Mileage

Governments and ehtanol industry studies say one thing, but real people say they get significantly less fuel economy with E10 than with MTBE gasoline. My truck gets ~7.5% less. Since E10 costs the same as MTBE oxygenated gas, I end up spending 7.5% more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.205.87.105 (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

V8rik and Pharmboy - Thank you for your quick clarifications

I'm somewhat vision impaired, and I didn't notice where you moved it. As I now understand, all that you changed was the title. It looks good to me as is. Thank you for the assistance. Escientist (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please calm down, I do not delete anything. I have renamed the paragraph to criticism and controversy because a similar named section existed prior to oct 2007. V8rik (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with V8rik that the section needs a more general name. There is nothing that is keeping the section from containing info on unsustainability. This is a Manual of Style issue, not a content issue. Pharmboy (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Just what I thought: a simple misunderstanding. Thanks both for your replies V8rik (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy

I propose that we remove the POV from this section. This section provides balance to the rest of this article. I suggest that you read the Biofuel article first.

If you disagrree, please add your specific suggestions for improvement here.

If there are none, I will remove the POV, with the permission of other editors Escientist (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• comment

You can always be bold (and risk revertion...), but if you think some particular passages need concensus to remove please be specific as to what you think is POV. Otherwise, we would have to guess what you have in mind. If there is a lot of content, then one way I might do it (not the official way, or "best" way, just one way) is to use comment tags in the article itself, right before a section that you think is pov, as in this example:

<!-- The next 3 paragraphs violate POV, likely to get deleted if not fixed. See talk. -->

And then refer to that here in talk, so we can easily go and look. People are always free to remove them, etc. but sometimes it is the easiest way to TEMPORARILY tag sections in an article, from my experience. You can't see them when reading the article regularly, and it is easy to find when editing. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• • NPOV tag removed, the editor was anonymous, did not use the edit summary or even left a message on the talk page. V8rik (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Environmental technology template

I'd like to replace the Environmental technology template with one that matches the standard navbox style, i.e. horizontal instead of vertical, collapsing and typically placed at the bottom of article pages. I've done a mock up of what this would look like at {{User:Jwanders/ET}}. Figured this was a big enough change that I should post before going ahead with it. Please discuss here--jwanders^Talk 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hydrated ethanol

Under the title' Ethanol-based engines, line 7 mentions hydrated ethanol. Though I have not followed developements there I know that when the Brazilian Pro-alcool programme started one idea was to use the azeotrope mixture as fuel in dedicated engines to save on extra distillation costs, and of course such a fuel could be used in engines that can be run on either one sort or another sort of fuel, providing that the azeotrope mixture is not mixed with the gasoline fuel. If by hydrated we mean not-dehydrated, then we ought to use the right term.LouisBB (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the Ethanol-based engines information

This section of the article references two DOE publications.

• Reference 18 is no longer at that location.

• Reference 19 is a great article, but reading it, the author makes it clear that they are calculating the mileage for alternative fuels based solely upon the relative energy per unit volume relative to gasoline and that no experimental data was collected from actual use of the alternative fuels in an engine. Therefore, we should not use this reference to state as fact that fuel consumption with ethanol would be 34% higher than with gasoline.

The chemical energy in a fuel is a measure of its ability to create heat when burned, but for the most part, heat is an undesirable by-product. All we really want is mechanical work and we extract the work by causing pressure rise at the top of the piston stroke. It is an over-simplification to assume that all fuels will burn with the same characteristics.

• Some fuels may burn more completely resulting in more of the chemical energy being released in the cylinder.
• A fuel which has a quicker propagation of flame will result in the pressure rise occurring while the piston is closer to the top of the stroke. This would result in more work being extracted from the generated heat for that fuel.
• Cylinder wall heating could well be different between the fuels.

Maintaining an engine's ability to "flex" between gasoline and ethanol makes the use of ethanol significantly less efficient than would be possible if the engine were optimized for the fuel. Ethanol has a much higher effective octane rating and can be used in engines with much higher compression ratios. Optimal spark timing would likely be different, and with different torque curves, the optimum shift points in the transmission would change. A high compression 4 cylinder ethanol engine with direct injection could easily produce about the same power as a V6 that was optimized for regular gasoline. Between the higher efficiencies and less weight from a smaller engine, you would well see MPG values that were just as good or better.

Gackaret (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Gackaret is quite correct. The Univ. of Minnesota, Mankato, has run tests and finds that the MPG penalty for using ethanol in most cars is nowhere near the 34% that is suggested by the energy density. In fact, the Toyota Camry running 30% ethanol achieved a higher MPG result than on gasoline.

See http://www.mnsu.edu/news/read/?id=old-1198253885&paper=topstories and the full report referenced therein.

Consumer Reports published a test two years ago, I believe, that verified the 34% penalty in the Chevy Tahoe and concluded that ethanol is a scam. If only they had tested another car, the report might be quite different. My personal experience in a 1999 Subaru Outback is a 15% mpg penalty, which is outweighed in New York State by a 25% discount in the cost of E85 vs gasoline. This is OR, but I mention it to buttress my credentials. My car was not produced as a flex-fuel car, but I converted it myself using a pulse stretcher (electronic) in the fuel injector feed. No, my fuel pump has not crumbled into dust. The possibility of conversion may interest the reader. Greenba (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This book Goettemoeller, Jeffrey; Adrian Goettemoeller (2007), Sustainable Ethanol: Biofuels, Biorefineries, Cellulosic Biomass, Flex-Fuel Vehicles, and Sustainable Farming for Energy Independence, Praire Oak Publishing, Maryville, Missouri, ISBN 978-0-9786293-0-4 . Brief and comprehensive account of the history, evolution and future of ethanol.{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) has a very good summary. It is indeed around 30% (I live in Brazil and have first hand experience). You can peek the book with the Amazon tool Search Inside.--Mariordo (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the information on E85 Ethanol at this web link http://www.mye85kit.com/index.html. It also lists links to find a fueling station in your area, as well as convertion kits to run your electronic fuel injected car or truck on E85 ethanol or pump gas without you doing anything. The convertion kits can be installed without (or with minumal) tools in a mater of minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.186.93 (talk) 06:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC) - MG of MG Fabrication

Contradictory Statements and Inherent Bias

Anybody else notice that the portion of the article quoted below contains two statements which directly contradict one another?

"When ethanol fuel availability allows high-compression ethanol-only vehicles to be practical, the fuel efficiency of such engines should be equal or greater than current gasoline engines. However, since the energy content (by volume) of ethanol fuel is less than gasoline, a larger volume of ethanol fuel (151%) would still be required to produce the same amount of energy.[23"

This discussion is too emotionally driven for me to bother touching. In my experience you have two groups, one which sees nothing but the shortcomings of ethanol and the other which sees nothing but the benefits. The reality is that ethanol offers both, and issues like energy content aren't nearly simple enough to be covered in a one phrase, or one page, statement. Unfortunately, unless you are a brainless cheerleader for one side of the ethanol debate or the other you shouldn't expect to get much support.

Sadly for those interested in understanding the intricacies of this debate this article is nearly useless. And all of the former renditions appear to have lent themselves to the use of that same descriptor. Syr74 (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The contradiction would be resolved if one distinguished between thermal efficiency and mechanical efficiency. Thermal efficiency is determined by the energy density, i.e. how many BTUs of heat are produced in combustion. Mechanical efficiency is how much mechanical work is performed in converting that heat into motion. Ethanol has less thermal efficiency than gasoline but more mechanical efficiency. One source says that the mpg penalty for using E85 in place of gasoline is between 5% and 15% in most modern cars (without any change in compression ratio). Early models of the Chevrolet Tahoe incurred a 34% penalty, but that is certainly not inherent in the use of E85.

The bumper sticker version is: E85 makes less heat, but what heat it makes, it uses better. Greenba (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

CO2 from fermentation

For one of the things each ethanol molecule (Mass = 46) one CO2 (mass = 44) is produced in the fermentation. Anyone know how this is accounted for in the CO2 balance? I can't find reference to it. I understand that this is captured and sold for industrial use, but it will end up in the atmosphere eventually. It surely depends on what CO2 supply is displaced by the fermented product, if this is fossil CO2 then this is a gain, and the CO2 can be discounted.Stainless316 (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Misconception about brazillian geography

"Sugar cane ethanol works in Brazil because they have an equatorial year-round growing season, and the Amazon River – world’s largest fresh water supply. Locations with snow on the ground part of the year, short growing seasons, and limited fresh water supplies are less effective. Growing crops like thirsty genetically-engineered corn can require significant irrigation."

Whoever wrote this does not have a clue about brazillian geography. Look up on a map, Brazil is a country twice as big as Europe. First: No sugar cane crops grow on amazon. It doesnt have the propre climate. Its too warm. Thats right, warm. Second: most part of the sugar cane grown in Brazil is cultivated on the state of São Paulo, more than a thousand kilometers from the amazon river. How in the world could the amazon river be used for that?? Third: what this corn comment has to do with sugar cane? I will erase this part, since its completely wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdpadua (talk • contribs) 14:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Unhealthy Aldehydes" section sounds a bit dodgy

This section seems a bit suspicious.

It doesn't have a reference directly attached, the chemical formulas above contradict it, and it simply says "Studies show", which to me appears very dodgy...

Furthermore, it doesn't clarify whether these occur in pure ethanol combustion, or in biofuels/mixed fuels.

If it doesn't get cleaned up with some more information and research attached, I think it should be removed. because the formulas above suggest that it doesn't happen. So I suspect this section is only in regards to mixed fuels —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.168.250 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 20 June 2008

The section seems like a personal hobby horse and I have deleted it. The link to toxicity relates to trailers FEMA re-housed flood vitims in, and quotes formaldehayde concentrations of 77ppb typically and sometimes much higher. The Osaka/Sao Paulo comparison shows raised levels of formaldehyde, from about 2 ppb to about 5 ppb, but still very much less than the 10-17ppb typically forund in a new home in the US. No reference suggesting a health hazard from these aldehydes is cited, and to link the life expectancy in Osaka with that in Sao Paulo is absurd.Stainless316 (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "EUBIA" :
  • [http://www.eubia.org/fileadmin/template/main/res/pdf/Projects/Brochure5_Bioethanol_low_res.pdf Bioethanol Production and Use, Creating Markets for Renewable Energy Technologies], [[European Biomass Industry Association]] EUBIA 4/2007, page 12
  • [http://www.eubia.org/fileadmin/template/main/res/pdf/Projects/Brochure5_Bioethanol_low_res.pdf Brochure5_Bioethanol_low_res Bioethanol Production and Use] “Creating Markets for Renewable Energy Technologies EU, RES Technology Marketing Campaign“, [[European Biomass Industry Association]] EUBIA 4/2007, page 12

DumZiBoT (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Pros and Cons

The Pros are that it is a renewable source of fuel. The cons is that it will take away our food or crops because thats what it is made from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.179.210 (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Fuel System Problems

Kudos to those who made this excellent page. After hearing complaints from friends I came here looking for information about water in California's 5-10% ethanol, hoping to learn about phase separation and how much of a problem it is. I hope somebody familiar with this can expand this section to include some discussion, and I added such a tag. If not, I may try to learn enough to do it. Robsavoie (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources 128, and 129

128: # ^ San Francisco Chronicle, April 18, 2007 Study warns of health risk from ethanol, accessed October 6, 2007. 129: # ^ ""Clearing the air on ethanol"". Environmental Science & Technology. 2007-04-18. http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2007/apr/science/ee_ethanol.html. Retrieved on 2008-01-14.

In source 128, the text itself cannout be found and in source 129 you have to be a member to even access the information. Furthermore, as stated in the article, ethanol fuel reduces combustion temperature which by all logic should result in lower ozone levels. Thus I ask: is this even a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.8.4.76 (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I just accessed the SF Chronicle article-- it's there, text and all. BTW, it's ref 127. After reading it I have added some things to summarize it more accurately. Like the pct. respiratory death increase (9%), and that's for the worst-case scenario: a huge, urban, car-based area: Los Angeles, USA. The second source (ref 128) I believe is a peer reviewed scientific journal. Limited access is a common way those journals make money online. Both are reliable sources under Wikipedia guidelines, but that's not to say they can't be wrong.

Question: Why do you think lowering combustion temperature would necessarily lower ozone levels? Diderot's dreams (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lower combustion temperature would reduce NOx which take part in the formation of ozone. Carbon monoxide emissions are also reduced which also take part in the formation of ozone. This is a complex matter to discuss though since NOx also take part in the reverse reaction (i.e. ozone -> oxygen). I find plenty of sources contradicting the information but I also find sources supporting it. Finding out what is true and false in this world ruled by money is a pretty heavy job, so I hope more information will come from for example EPA, which would be pretty reliable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.8.4.76 (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What you are saying about lower pollution with ethanol makes sense to me. Perhaps you can add information from other studies and underlying knowledge that contradicts it. Also, reading the original study might shed some light on the conclusions made by the Stanford study. Not free, except maybe at the library.

I've found it hard to find the truth too. I think Wikipedia helps do this through articles written by many people under content guidelines. That's one of the things that attracted me to editing Wikipedia. My suggestion is to jump in and add information. I'd be happy to help or answer any questions on how to do this. Diderot's dreams (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And information can be added about the funding source for any study, if it can be found. Diderot's dreams (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

EPA rulemaking and Obama Directive

Regarding the update I just did on the US section, this is current event that is likely to evolve and bring more controversy in the near future. I copied the exact text on a new section in the Ethanol fuel in the US called "Latest developments". Though you are free to edit this text for NPOV or to improve the content, I kindly suggest this content and associated issues are expanded in the US article and not here. Also there is a new article Low-carbon fuel standard with a worldwide view where some on the expected controversy can be edited, particularly the reaction to CARB's ruling. Any other suggestions are welcomed.--Mariordo (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
PD: By the way, I am planning to create this weekend a new article named Indirect land-use change effects, in an effort to detail the scientific studies supporting this theory and the ongoing controversy, both academic and in the public arena. Suggestions for a different name are welcome. What about "Indirect land-use change carbon footprint" or "Indirect land-use change emissions" or "Biofuels indirect land-use change effects",...., etc.--Mariordo (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I decided to use Indirect land use impacts of biofuels, which is the title of the Bioenergy Wiki entry on this subject. The title can be changed later any way.--Mariordo (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ethanol fuel in Uruguay

In the 1910s, Uruguayan President José Batlle y Ordóñez attempted to state-produce alcohol fuel through the Instituto de Química Industrial. ANCAP tried to do the same in the 1930s, but as you may guess foreign petrol companies stopped the project. Here you have a couple of links, in case anyone wants to write a section about it: one, two, three, four. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I could create a section on Uruguay, but besides the historical background can you provide a couple of links regarding the new ethanol blend that is going or went into effect in order to add info with the current situation.--Mariordo (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Four days ago, El País reported that ethanol fuel production would start next July and it would be blended with gasoline from August. Law Nº 18.195 dictates a minimum of 5% of ethanol in gasoline starting in January 2015. Before that date, ANCAP must blend less. I've found nothing else than that. Thanks for the support! --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Efficiency of common crops: Hemp

How efficient is hemp compared to the highest efficiency sugar cane?71.109.213.48 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC).

Hemp is a terrible source of ethanol and any other biofuel. Its growing is slow and its productivity is far smaller than sugar cane. The hemp as a solution for energy is nothing more than an urban legend.Agre22 (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

This inactive text has been removed from the section "Colombia"

--Pending translation

El programa se implanto inicialmente para reducir las emisiones de monóxido de carbono de los coches. Regulaciones más recientes eximieron al etanol elaborado a partir de biomasa de algunos impuestos que gravan la gasolina, haciendo así más barato el etanol que la gasolina. Esta tendencia se vio reforzada cuando los precios del petróleo subieron a principios de 2004 y con el interés en combustibles renovables (al menos para los coches). En Colombia el precio de la gasolina y del etanol es controlado por el gobierno. Complementariamente a este programa para el etanol existe un programa para el biodiesel para oxigenar combustible diésel y para producir un combustible renovable a partir del aceite vegetal. En agosto de 2006 el Presidente Alvaro Uribe anuncio que la produccion seria una de las prioridades de su administracion. El objetivo es compensar la reduccion de las reservas colombianas de petroleo y ubicar al pais al frente de la produccion de combustibles limpios en Latin America, atras de Brazil.

Al principio todo el interés en la producción del etanol venía de la industria de azúcar existente, ya que es relativamente fácil añadir un módulo para desarrollar etanol al final de una fabrica de azúcar y las necesidades energéticas son similares a las que se necesitarían para producir el azúcar. El gobierno alienta a convertir gradualmente las fuentes de combustible de los coches a una mezcla del 10 por ciento de etanol y de 90 por ciento de gasolina. Las plantas del etanol están siendo incentivadas por tratos fiscales.

La primera planta de etanol (para usarlo como combustible) en Colombia comenzó a producir en octubre de 2005, con la salida de 300.000 litros al día en Cauca. Hasta marzo de 2006 cinco plantas, todas en el valle del Río Cauca (departamentos de Valle, Cauca y Risaralda), están operativas con una capacidad combinada de 1.050.000 litros por día o de 357 millones de litros por año. En el Valle del Cauca el azúcar se cosecha durante todo el año y las destilerías nuevas tienen una disponibilidad muy alta. La inversión total en estas plantas es $100 millones. Eventualmente, Colombia espera tener una capacidad de 2.500.000 litros por el día, que es el la cantidad necesaria para agregar el 10% de etanol a la gasolina.

Materialscientist (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Translation:

The program was first implemented to reduce automobile carbon monoxide emissions. More recent regulations exempted ethanol derived from biomass from some of the taxes that are levied on gasoline, making ethanol so produced less expensive than gasoline. This trend was reinforced when the price of petroleum climbed at the beginning of 2004 and with the rising interest in renewable fuels (at least for cars). In Columbia, price of gasoline and ethanol is controlled by the government.

Along with this program for ethanol, there is a biodeisel program to oxygenate diesel fuel and to produce a renewable fuel from vegetable oil. In August 2006, President Alvardo Uribe announced that its production would be one of the priorities of his administration. The objective is to compensate for the reduction of petroleum reserves and to place the country at the front of the production of clean fuels in Latin America, after Brazil.

At first, all the interest in the production of ethanol came from the existent sugar industry, since it is relatively easy to add a module to develop ethanol at the end of a sugar factory, and the energy needs are similar to those needed to make sugar. The government helped to gradually convert the fuel sources for cars to a ten percent ethanol, 90% gasoline mix. The ethanol plants were being incentivized by tax policies.

The first ethanol factory (for use as a fuel) in Columbia began production in October 2005 in Cauca, with deliveries of 300,000 litres per day. As of March 2006, 5 factories, all in the Cauco river valley (in the departments of Valle, Cauca, and Risaralda) are operating with a combined capacity of 1,050,000 litres per day, or 357 million litres per year. Sugar is harvested yearound in the valley, and the new distilleries have a very high production capacity. The total investment in these plants is $100 million. Eventually, Columbia hopes to have a capacity of 2.5 million litres per day, which is the amount needed to add 10% ethanol to gasoline.

Diderot's dreams (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How much land is needed?

How much land is needed to cultivate ethanol? I know the article says that Brazil cultivates around 355 million hectares to produce ethanol, but I did the conversion to kilometres and then checked it in Google Earth but it gave me an area larger than the United States, which is impossible, I might've committed an error during the conversion but I don't think so.

So just to be sure, can anyone else also do the conversion to kilometres and then tell us what you got? Thanks. Supaman89 (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

1 hectare = 10,000 m²

355,000,000 hectares = 3,550,000,000,000 m²

3,550,000,000,000 m² * (1 km/1,000 m) * (1 km/1,000 m) = 3,550,000 km²

The area of Brazil is 8,514,877 km². The U.S. is a bit more. I think maybe your calculation is off. Diderot's dreams (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you mate, that's actually what I got the second time I tried, but when I checked the distances in Google Earth is still a lot, which is what led me to think I was doing something wrong, but it might just be a problem with distances in Google Earth, I've got a screenshot so you can see how that area would look like in real life.

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/1449/geethanolareamap.png Supaman89 (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Clarification. The article says 355 million Ha is Brazil's total arable land, that is almost half of its territory, but land use for ethanol production is just 3.6 million Ha, that is 1 percent of available arable land. And by the way, a shorter way to make the conversion 100 Ha = 1 Km² = 1 million m².--Mariordo (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The image shows a square 3,550 km on a side. The correct square would be 1,884 km on a side, the square root of 3,550,000 km². The number I gave you is an area, not a length, and it is already in kilometers. And that is total arable land, as Mariodo says. I'm afraid you just can't seem to do anything right on this one :0. Diderot's dreams (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, I didn't notice that the 355 million Ha were the total arable land of Brazil, anyway so finally I did the conversion from 3.6 million Ha to 36,000 km and then did the square root of that which is 189.74 Km, then I checked it in Google Earth and this is what I got: http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/670/epab.png

I think it looks pretty accurate. Supaman89 (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Maybe the picture, cleaned up a little, could be in the article or the subarticle on ethanol in Brazil?

If you'd like to return the favor, I have something you can help me with. I noticed from your userpage that you speak both English and Spanish. I do too, and I translated an article from Spanish a few months ago that still needs a proofreader. The Wikipedia system is broken down, so I couldn't find one at the time. The article is the Economy of Hispania, and I translated it from the Spanish wikipedia, where it is a featured article. It is a beautiful piece, and I am especially wanting someone to doublecheck the translation against the original, just to be sure I didn't introduce any factual error in the translation. Whatever help you can give would be great! Diderot's dreams (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It is pretty well translated, I just added the links to other languages which you probably forgot to put, but besides that it is identical to the original. Supaman89 (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

HOW MUCH LAND DOES BRAZIL NEED TO MEET 100% ITS FUEL CONSUMPTION

3,550,000km² is the TOTAL ARABLE LAND IN BRAZIL, it is equivalent to a square 1884km x 1884km, and it accounts for about 35% of Brazils total Land. In the first photo above supaman made the mistake of choosing a square that is 3550km x 3550km, over 4 times bigger than what was intended. But this is not all dedicated to Biofuel, infact we read in a chart below that in 2006 only 1% of arable land was dedicated to Biofuels and that Brazil covered 18% of its fuel consumption at that time.

The NEW MATHS are:
1% of arable land in brazil = 18% fuel consumption.
3,6million hectares = 18% fuel consumption
20 million hectares = 100% fuel consumption
20 million hectares = 200,000km²
20 million hectares = 447km x 447km

So it seems that we do not need so much land to grow our fuels, though these figures probably only account for transport and much more land would be required if we were to meet ALL our energy needs from BioFuels. 80.34.137.194 (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ethanol from coal, natural gas and biogas

The article has nothing about alternatives sources of ethanol. These sites: [Coal 1] and [Coal 2] talks about producing ethanol from coal. Natural gas and biogas both have methane (CH4). Using heat we can produce ethylene from methane: 2 CH4 --> H2C=CH2 + 2 H2. The ethylene can react with water and produce ethanol: H2c=CH2 + H2O ---> H3C-CH2-OH (ethanol). Agre22 (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)agre22

UK text removed as not being relevant - why?

Why was the text about a British user of Ethanol fuel removed as being 'not relevant'?

Is it because you do not want anything which is in any way negative being said about this fuel? I only reported facts as per a newspaper article - nothing more.

as it happens, the bus company has topped using Ethanol on purely financial grounds - I was going to add the text but found that what I had submitted had been removed.

Below is a copy of what was removed.

Spsmiler (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

In late 2007, a bus company which operates local buses in the English town of Reading placed an order with Scania for 14 new ethanol fuelled double decker buses to replace the existing fleet of biodiesel powered vehicles operating premier route 17. At the time the order was placed, this was the largest order for ethanol fuelled buses in the UK. These buses started work on 26 May 2008 . However, in October 2009 it was discovered that instead of the bio-ethanol fuel having been sourced from sugar beet grown in the English county of Norfolk (as everyone had been told it would be), it was actually made from wood pulp imported from Sweden. Reading borough councillors have launched an investigation into how they and the Reading Transport Board – which runs Reading Buses – could have been deceived. -

I agree with the editor who removed the text. The story is just too minor too include. If there were a systematic problem with deception with ethanol fuel, it would be different. This is a local story. Putting it in the article on Reading, or in the articles on Scania or the bus company might be appropriate. Diderot's dreams (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree too, not relevant for this article.-Mariordo (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Financial Times writes about ethanol as a fuel

This site: [Financial Times] has an article published on the Financial Times about ethanol as a fuel.Agre22 (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

Do you think US subsidies are good for ethanol production? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.244.190 (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Impact on commodity prices. (fuel vs food)

The congressional budget office says:

The increase in the amount of corn used to produce etha­nol has exerted upward pressure on corn prices, boosted the demand for cropland, and raised the price of animal feed. Those effects, in turn, have lifted the prices of many farm commodities (for example, soybeans, meat, poultry, and dairy products) and, consequently, the retail price of food. The rise in food prices has affected not only the costs to individual consumers but also spending for the federal government’s food assistance programs.

-http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10057/MainText.4.1.shtml

The Food vs. fuel article says :A World Bank policy research working paper released in July 2008[21] concluded that "...large increases in biofuels production in the United States and Europe are the main reason behind the steep rise in global food prices"

As ethanol production skyrocketed, so did commodity crop prices, as seen here: [9] (However, the worldwide depression has brought those prices back down temporarily.) Surely this should be discussed.

This issue is relegated to a small 'Controversies' section. Doesn't seem appropriate. Terming the issue merely a 'risk' is misleading; we know there's an impact, and Food vs. fuel, while displaying a spectrum of views, makes this clear.

(FYI, I've reviewed the last couple talk page archives.) I'm going to make a couple small edits, accordingly.--Elvey (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

FUEL IS FOOD

This debate of fuel vs food is redundant because Fuel is Food. Each process in growing crops, from production of seeds, fertilizers and pesticides, to sowing, watering, harvesting, packaging and distribution, requires machinery and Energy i.e. gasoline. What we have observed since 2008 is a steep rise in Oil, with the corresponding rise in food prices and threat of famine in the poorest areas. There are 7,6billion people alive today because we have the energy that grows the food and keeps them warm in winter.

So, I urge wikipedians to see through the FOG OF WAR and understand that ultimately we depend on energy and that what is driving up prices worldwide is oil which is a finite resource and we are a virus that will keep growing and expanding until stoped.

If we choose to keep going to work by car as prices continue to rise them we will pay much higher prices for the gasoline to go to work, prices that some farmer in Asia cannot afford.

So please disregard the headline hunting politicians. Biofuels will never be more responsible for the rise in food prices than your decision to put air conditioning, solar heating or buying a smaller more economical car. 80.34.137.194 (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Article obviously Pro-Ethanol

On the whole, this article is (almost cheerily) pro-Ethanol. If Ethanol didn't have all the problems it has (pretty much pushed to the bottom here) then US Energy Secretary Chu wouldn't have said, as he did on Nov. 29, 2010, "Ethanol is not an ideal transportation fuel. The future of transportation fuels shouldn't involve ethanol." However the facts stack up on this issue, they are underrepresented in this article, which makes it manifestly non-NPOV.

Because it is a seriously and timely question, the article of necessity needs to incorporate the resuts of scientific studies of the short- and long-term effects of ethanol fuel on people, the environment, car engines, etc. which have obviously prompted Secretary Chu to this conclusion. These questions cannot be addressed adequately by a small pooh-poohing section pushed to the bottom. Twang (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment and you are blatantly advocating a POV, which is not allowed in Wikpedia. The lead summarizes the main concerns regarding ethanol fuel production, and the sections regarding the social and environmental impacts are located where they are because from a NPOV that is the logical arrangement of the article. Furthermore, all sections in this part of the article branch through the "See also" tags to the the main articles that discuss in detail the main environmental concerns such ILUC, Food vs. fuel (I just added it), Low-carbon fuel standard, Issues relating to biofuels, etc. I agree that the content/summaries in several sections are incomplete and poorly written, but an editor must volunteer to devote some time to improve them. Are you willing to undertake this task?--Mariordo (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Information

The article says that E85 has ~104 octane. This is not correct, it is closer to 94-96. This is because the "blending" value used to calculate low % mixing with gasoline is different than the actual octane rating of pure ethanol. I went ahead and edited it, but someone might want to go through and check all the other numbers also. That is a pretty big one to have ~10% off. --Electrostatic1 (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Citation Needed - Cite Another Wiki Page?

If the statement that ethanol combustion in air requires citation here, then it also does where the same was said for ALL combustion in air in the article on "combustion" Eddietoran (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Air Pollution

I removed the statement about the relative CO2-equivalent emissions of ethanol versus gasoline. Since CO2-equivalent is a combined measure of all greenhouse gases, it includes emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx). NOx forms from atmospheric nitrogen based on conditions in the combustion chamber, and does not correspond directly to emissions from ethanol or gasoline. In fact, the relationship between NOx and ethanol blend level is complex, with low-level ethanol blends releasing less NOx than pure gasoline, mid-level blends releasing more NOx than pure gasoline, and high-level blends once again releasing less NOx than pure gasoline. Some of these effects can be seen in this study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The article that was formerly used as a source for the statement assigned a single CO2-equivalent value to gasoline versus ethanol, which does not accurately reflect the fact that an important greenhouse gas component of ethanol blends is dependent on the blend level, rather than an inherent property of ethanol. 173.166.110.9 (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Where is the comparison of the enthalpies of combustion?

The work produced by an IC engine depend greatly upon the heat of combustion.

PV=nRT n is lower, T is lower so P will be lower, therefore the work is lower per stroke, therefore fuel consumption must increase to accomplish the same work. There must be a thorough comparison done.

Where is the chemical engineering? The hard numbers? All I see is politics and conflab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.211.225 (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

From what I can determine, Gasoline blended with Ethanol has about 3% less heat of combustion. That means less Temperature increase in the combustion chamber upon ignition, therefore lower combustion pressures, therefore lower horsepower. ALSO, the adiabatic flame temperature for ethanol is lower than octane. I am looking up a source.

It puzzles me that with all the enviro mumbo jumbo that the simple fundamental scientific CRC HB of C&P values are not stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.211.225 (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Link to citation 24 broken

The link to citation 24 is broken, and my attempts to find the original source have proven futile -- it seems to have been deleted. I'm not experienced enough to fix this or make a more correct note, but I wanted to bring it to your (the community's) attention.

130.64.25.57 (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Marked the link dead. Unfortunately they had robots.txt so we can't recover it from the Internet Archive. Sizeofint (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ethanol fuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070609142818/http://www.raa.net:80/page.asp?TerID=146 to http://www.raa.net/page.asp?TerID=146
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090625042029/http://www.epa.gov:80/orcdizux/rfgecon.htm to http://www.epa.gov/orcdizux/rfgecon.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Contradictory and Redundant Paragraphs

The paragraphs "Air Pollution" and "Carbon Dioxide" are contradictory to each other and also address the same subject. (Carbon Dioxide) 136.182.2.26 (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There are two paragraphs in the Ethanol-based engines section which are also contradictory. Paragraph 5 describes how ethanol "absorbs water vapor directly from the atmosphere", while the next paragraph incorrectly explains that hygroscopic substances "do not absorb water vapor directly from the atmosphere". The second paragraph is unsupported by the citation given and should be deleted.

Removed it. Sizeofint (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Ethanol fuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/summaries2006/English.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080509182640/http://www.ethanolproducer.com:80/article-print.jsp?article_id=2077 to http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article-print.jsp?article_id=2077
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090320033944/http://www.scania.com/Images/P07503EN%20New%20ethanol%20engine_tcm10-163550.pdf to http://www.scania.com/Images/P07503EN%20New%20ethanol%20engine_tcm10-163550.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081005001713/http://royalsociety.org:80/displaypagedoc.asp?id=28632 to http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=28632
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150908130551/http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2004/biofuels2004.pdf to http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2004/biofuels2004.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ethanol fuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120331031420/http://www.epiphergy.com/uploads/Brazil_Hydrous_Ethanol.pdf to http://www.epiphergy.com/uploads/Brazil_Hydrous_Ethanol.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)