Fuel Efficiency of Ethanol in the Real World

There is a particular poster at The Oil Drum who frequently claims that a gallon of ethanol can replace a gallon of gasoline in a car. Although he denies it, his over-the-top defenses of corn ethanol are consistent with someone who is being paid to promote it. There is no objectivity on his part, ever. A good ethanol study is one in which the results are pro-ethanol, even if it is funded by the ethanol industry. A questionable study is one in which the results are anti-ethanol – regardless of who funded it or where it was published. It doesn’t matter if a study was done as a high school science project if he likes the results. On the other hand, he has rejected a peer-reviewed paper in Science because he didn’t like the conclusions.

Here he is making his fuel efficiency claims:

Ethanol has an Octane Rating of 113 AKI (compared to 86 for straight gasoline.) This means that even though it’s “energy content” is lower, it can achieve much greater Efficiency than gasoline when burned in a proper engine.

That’s why recent tests, such as the one performed by N.Dakota Univ, and Mn State, show that, when burned in newer vehicles, E20 gave slightly better mileage than straight gasoline in three of four cars tested.

Later in that post he wrote: “…it has been show that one gallon of ethanol can, in a newer engine, for all practical purposes, replace one gallon of gasoline (116,000 btus,)…”

Here is the study he used to support his point:

OPTIMAL ETHANOL BLEND-LEVEL INVESTIGATION

The funny thing is that the tests with ethanol blends actually showed a loss of fuel efficiency on 72% of the trials, even though the test was sponsored by the American Coalition of Ethanol. This is comical considering that this particular person won’t accept any study remotely having any ties to oil companies. As I explained, here was what the test actually showed:

Without a doubt, you are embellishing the results. This is what I see from the ethanol tests. Look at Figures 10-13. Here is the reality of the tests:

Figure 10. 2007 Toyota Camry, 2.4-L engine – 6 of 7 tests show worse fuel efficiency on an ethanol blend. There is one apparent outlier, which was the basis for the claims. (And it looks like a classic outlier, with almost all of the other points falling as predicted).

Figure 11. 2007 Chevrolet Impala (non-flex fuel), 3.5-L engine – 5 of 5 tests show worse fuel efficiency on an ethanol blend.

Figure 12. 2007 Chevrolet Impala (flex fuel), 3.5-L engine – 8 tests, 2 show better fuel efficiency, 2 show the same, and 3 show worse fuel efficiency on an ethanol blend.

Figure 13. 2007 Ford Fusion, 2.3-L engine – 4 of 5 tests show worse fuel efficiency on an ethanol blend. There is one apparent outlier.

So, what can we conclude? Of 25 data points, 18 confirm that the fuel economy is worse on an ethanol blend. That is 72% of the tests, and these tests were paid for by the ethanol lobby (which is why I suspect the results were spun as they were). The outliers are interesting enough for further investigation, but you have vastly overstated the test results. In reality, if you pulled the results out of a bag, you have only a 28% chance of improving your fuel efficiency on the basis of any particular test. Further, the outlier didn’t always occur at the same percentage, which would be quite problematic even if the result is confirmed.

Apparently for you, this is like pass/fail. If we have 4 data sets, and in each set 1 of 10 points showed a positive result, you claim 100% positive results. I won’t say that’s dishonest, but it is definitely putting the best possible spin on the situation. And while it seems that the matter is settled for you, what I would do as a next step is hone in on those outliers and see if they can be consistently replicated. Unless they are, you may be banking your claims on nothing more than experimental error, as the tests showing the desired result were in the minority.

That hasn’t stopped this person from continuing to argue that we should go to higher ethanol blends, since this study shows the benefit. Of course there have been plenty of (objective) tests that do show the expected drop in fuel efficiency when using ethanol, including this one from Consumer Reports: The Ethanol Myth.

But today it came to my attention (via an essay by Geoffrey Styles) that a study recently published by Oak Ridge National Labs (ORNL) is the latest to show that you lose fuel efficiency on ethanol blends:

Effects of Intermediate Ethanol Blends on Legacy Vehicles and Small Non-Road Engines

E.4.1 Fuel Economy

• All 13 vehicles exhibited a loss in fuel economy commensurate with the energy density of the fuel.* With E20, the average reduction in fuel economy (i.e., the reduction in miles per gallon) was 7.7 percent compared to E0.

• Limited evaluations of fuel with as much as 30% ethanol were conducted, and the reduction in miles per gallon continued as a linear trend with increasing ethanol content.

Of course my friend will just respond that ORNL is clearly biased against ethanol and that the study is ridiculous. Either that or he will cherry-pick any favorable results, promote them, and ignore the unfavorable results.

So, while it is true that in theory one could make up some of the BTU deficit by going to engines with higher compression ratios – as I argued in All BTUs Are Not Created Equally – in the real world with real world engines the BTU penalty has to be paid.

Incidentally, the essay by Geoffrey Styles that I referenced earlier makes an interesting point. The ethanol industry is requesting an increase in the percentage of ethanol allowed for blending into gasoline from 10% to 15%. As Geoffrey points out, this is like a hidden tax on consumers, but the tax goes to the ethanol companies. The federal government actually loses out on the deal as well: “At the current average gasoline pump price of $1.93 per gallon, this would effectively raise the price by 3.4 cents per gallon, while reducing federal tax revenue by 2.2 cents.”

Given the power of the ethanol lobby in this country, we will probably end up doing it.

38 thoughts on “Fuel Efficiency of Ethanol in the Real World”

  1. Off topic, but did you catch the recent story by Robert Bryce in the Wall Street Journal? He made the same points you made in The Nuclear Comeback; namely that there was no way that wind and solar were going to displace coal and nuclear. Like you, he used the EIA data to demonstrate his point. Here is the story if you didn’t see it.


    Let’s Get Real About Renewable Energy

  2. It is interesting that the word ‘efficiency’ is not used once in OPTIMAL ETHANOL BLEND-LEVEL
    INVESTIGATION.

    Here is the thing about honest people, sometimes there research is straight forward and the title tells you what they wanted to find out.

    “Without a doubt, “

    Read it your self and draw your own conclusions.

    “So, what can we conclude? Of 25 data points, 18 confirm that the fuel economy is worse on an ethanol blend. That is 72% of the tests, ..”

    All I conclude is that there may be an optimal blend that is different for different cars. Sometimes, fuel economy is higher than predicted and sometimes lower than predicted based on BTU content of the fuel. I can infer from this that the thermal efficiency of ICE is affect by differences in fuel properties.

  3. It is interesting that the word ‘efficiency’ is not used once in OPTIMAL ETHANOL BLEND-LEVEL
    INVESTIGATION.

    No, they used “economy.” Are you seriously complaining that I used the word efficiency instead of economy; words that are commonly used interchangeably and don’t impact the essay in any way, shape, or form?

    Here is the thing about honest people, sometimes there research is straight forward and the title tells you what they wanted to find out.

    I am having trouble understanding what you are trying to say here, but if it’s what I think it is you are treading on very thin ice given your multiple warnings. We have been through this. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I have misunderstood what you are implying.

    Sometimes, fuel economy is higher than predicted and sometimes lower than predicted based on BTU content of the fuel.

    Yeah, I explained that in “All BTUs are Not Created Equally.” But to the other point, if there is an optimal blend that is different for different cars, do you foresee that gas stations will offer a dozen different fuel blends so you can get the one that’s just right? I don’t.

    RR

  4. I would not use the word ‘efficiency’ interchangeably with fuel economy. After all, some POV with same type engine might have the same thermal efficiency but very different fuel economy based on many other factors.

    “I am having trouble understanding what you are trying to say here,..”

    What I wrote is straight forward, the think the report was written by honest people and is informative. I recommend people read it and draw their own conclusions. Do you think that the report indicates dishonesty and not worth reading?
    I understand that RR has an issue with how somebody used the data but comments are on the original source.

    “..do you foresee that gas stations will offer a dozen different fuel blends..?”

    Last time I saw stations with variable blend was in South Dakota. This was two years ago. The first time I bought blended gas from this brand was 1968.

  5. I would not use the word ‘efficiency’ interchangeably with fuel economy. After all, some POV with same type engine might have the same thermal efficiency but very different fuel economy based on many other factors.

    Fuel efficiency is the term I grew up with to refer to MPG, and I grew up in a family of mechanics. So when I say “fuel efficiency” I am not talking about thermal efficiency.

    What I wrote is straight forward, the think the report was written by honest people and is informative.

    Then I did misunderstand what you were saying. My apologies. I thought you were questioning my honesty.

    Do you think that the report indicates dishonesty and not worth reading?

    I think the report reflects a positive spin that is indicative of who funded it. But the guy at TOD simply refers to the positive spin (most cars had higher fuel efficiency on an ethanol blend), and never tells the whole story. So he is misleading people with the report. As I said, by his metric if a trial had 9 negative results and 1 positive, the results were 100% positive. I don’t think too many people would agree with that, unless one happens to be trying to sell a particular POV.

    RR

  6. I am not in the ethanol camp, and I think we should concentrate on PHEVs, or very high mpg cars, not ethanol. Gas taxes, not mandate, are the way.
    That being said, RR, for you to say that one commentor at TOD might be in the pocket of the ethanol camp, while the editing and even censorship at that site is extremely questionable, puzzles me.
    If you suspect one ethanol nut, why do you not suspect the entire site?
    Repeatedly, TOD has censored commentors who think the oil market is soft, overpriced, or may be headed to long-term glut (including me). They have left posted hate messages against the author Robin Mills (who authored a book contesting the Peak Oil doom outlook), until it was noticed on Peak Oil Debunked, and then they took them down (belatedly).
    They have scare-mongered situations to the nth degree, including the infamous Hurricane Gonu episode, led by Professor Goose (he got cooked on that one, but the way. The hurricane hit dry desert air, and went poof, as they always do, which is why you never read about hurricanes crossing over desert regions).
    They advertise themselves as a “forum,” yet do not invite a Mills to be a regular contributor. That is not a forum, if it tolerates only a narrow range of viewpoints.
    The are solid arguments to the effect that the current relatively soft oil could persist for years, maybe even a decade. Try finding that argument consistently, if ever, presented on TOD. It is a view that may be wrong, or right, but certainly as worthy as the doom scenarios.
    So, RR, if you suspect one ethanol backer as being a mouthpiece, what say you to the entire TOD site? Do you not suspect it is ultimately financed by interests who have a stake in oil prices going up, or being perceived as scarce?

  7. One of my favorite examples of the flagrant duplicity of the ethanol advocacy organizations is this one by NEVC. Their E85 FAQs says there may be ~10-15% mileage penalty. http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/faqs/range.php But another of their advocacy pieces is an argument on why states should have lower fuel taxes at the pump for E85 vs gasoline because E85 has 29% lower BTUs!
    http://www.e85fuel.com/legislation/documents/nevc_state_road_tax_april06.doc They even give a handy example showing that 1 gal gasoline will take you 25 miles, but it takes 1.4 gal E85 . . . . Priceless

  8. So, RR, if you suspect one ethanol backer as being a mouthpiece, what say you to the entire TOD site? Do you not suspect it is ultimately financed by interests who have a stake in oil prices going up, or being perceived as scarce?

    There are mouthpieces on both sides, it’s just that I have tangled with this particular one on numerous occasions. Having said that, I have no reason to believe that TOD is financed by vested interests. There are certainly people involved who would have an incentive for seeing higher oil prices. There are people who are buying oil futures. That is for sure. But I don’t believe there is a conspiracy there.

    The censorship is a different story. I don’t agree with it (with rare exceptions), and have voiced my opinion on the matter. But some people have ultimate authority over specific areas, and they have different views about censorship than I do. For that reason, I generally stay out of certain areas.

    Cheers, RR

  9. RR-
    The word “conspiracy”: What does that mean?
    If two or three of the “editors” are receiving indirect payments from oil traders or oil interests, and they shape the coverage to reflect those interests, is that conspiracy?
    There is no disclosure. There is censorship.

  10. I may have missed it somewhere, but what is the correct number for the number of BTUs of fossil fuels required to produce a gallon of ethanol? The TOD poster’s estimate of 30,000 sounds too low. A link to a source would be appreciated.

  11. Robert,

    Thanks for providing a valuable service by referring to paper and pointing to specific numbers, facts and assumptions to support your arguments.

    It’s clear that there are some paid shills on these boards. I have my own opinions as to whether they are from VC backed companies or large agri-interests.

    Its important you are doing this given the amount of politics and money involved with ethanol, as well as how it distracts other more viable solutions.

  12. So, while it is true that in theory one could make up some of the BTU deficit by going to engines with higher compression ratios…
    If you are going to build an E100 (or E85, or EX, with X = whatever)-specific engine, you lose the one significant benefit ethanol has: its ability to burn in existing engines.

    The high-compression engine would face the same chicken-and-egg issue that is supposedly holding back the magic fuel, hydrogen (harp music fills the air…).

    Put it this way: Would you buy a car that could only run on E85? Even if it had 30% better mileage? Not what the MIA rational consumer would do…

  13. Robert,
    You said I think the report reflects a positive spin that is indicative of who funded it.

    Where is the positive spin? They tested various fuel blends, measured the fuel economy and emissions and reported the results. Just because some clown at TOD is spinning doesn’t mean that the original researchers are.

    So what about your spin? The researchers are clearly comparing their results to the BTU adjusted expected fuel economy, but you compare to the unadjusted fuel economy. Anything below your unadjusted baseline is a “negative result” anything above your baseline is an “outlier”

    Do you know something about dyno testing that would lead you to believe that the high results are outliers. I see some error bars on the plots, I don’t know if they are meaningful, but these guys seem to have done a thorough job and seem to think that the high and low results are real.

    The other thing that I would point out is that the Flex Fuel vehicle is clearly not paying the full BTU penalty for ethanol, and it is my understanding that the difference between a flex fuel and regular engine is in corrosion resistant parts that would have no impact on MPG and the programming of the engine management system. Very minor changes.

    In my own flex fuel vehicle, a 99 Dodge Grand Caravan, the mileage has been inconsistent when using E85, I have never gotten 20% lower mileage that some claim I should. And I have been surprised that there is usually little or no difference at all. In fact, I recall twice getting excellent mileage (the best I can recall) with E-85 in the tank. Once was while driving east on I-90 across Southern Minnesota’s wind corridor with a 40 MPH tail wind, and the other time was just an outlier.

    For disclosure, Minnesota State is my alma mater.

  14. Where is the positive spin?

    From the Executive Summary:

    While only three non-flex-fuel vehicles were tested in this study, there is a strong indication that non-flex-fuel vehicles operated on optimal ethanol blend levels, which are higher than the standard E10 blend, can obtain better fuel mileage than on gasoline.

    Now look at some of the figures in the report; Figure 10 and 11 for instance. You have a number of points falling along the line as expected, and then one that looks oddly misplaced. In that situation, there is no way I would suggest that there is a strong indication that this means they are getting better fuel efficiency than on gasoline. It looks like a strong indication of a systematic or measurement error, which should lead to additional testing and not conclusions based on what looks like an outlier.

    I can think of quite a few things that could cause an outlier like that; for instance a mistake in the recipe for the E30 blend. But there isn’t a good explanation for why the E30 would be so far out of whack with where E20 and E40 fell on the line. As I said at the time, “Interesting results. Need replicating by someone else.”

    If I was a betting man, I would bet that the results can’t be replicated by an independent lab. In fact, the ORNL test certainly didn’t replicate anything like this on E20 or E30 blends, which casts doubt on the original study.

    RR

  15. So what about your spin? The researchers are clearly comparing their results to the BTU adjusted expected fuel economy, but you compare to the unadjusted fuel economy.

    By the way, I have no idea what you are talking about here. I expect the fuel efficiency on ethanol blends to fall. The initial study showed this 72% of the time. The claim from the TOD poster (and he certainly isn’t the only one to run with this) is that this study shows that there really isn’t a BTU penalty – not that the penalty isn’t as bad as expected. No penalty is the claim, and that is the claim I addressed.

    RR

  16. You type fast.

    I am not interested in some joker at TOD. I want the truth about ethanol. We both know that the energy content is lower, and we both know why. We also know that an ICE can get equal or better mileage with ethanol IF the engine is designed for ethanol.

    So do typical vehicles on the road today all pay the ethanol penalty for the lower energy content? ORNL suggests yes MnCAR says not always, although I will admit that they said it in a slightly more positve way.

    So did they do the same test? Look at 3.1.5.1 in the ORNL paper and 3.2 in the MnCAR report. Did these cars “learn” the same way? I don’t know.

    Clearly the flex fuel vehicle performs better that the others, whats the difference, is it a simple computer chip or control module or is it more than that?

    You also suggest that one possibility for the “outliers” is a mistake in blending, but they did report some quality control testing that would have caught such a mistake.

    Like I said, I went to Mn State, they have a very good automotive engineering dept., or at least they did 20 years ago.

    When you do a post about a recent paper, do you ever consider shooting an e-mail to the authors inviting them to stop by and comment?

  17. I didn’t see mentioned at all in this an E85 specific engine with a high compression ratio to make use of the higer octane. Where can I find information showing how large an MPG gain there would be over a standard E85 engine. And by E85 specific, I mean gasoline can’t be used (or compared).

  18. You type fast.

    That I do. That’s the only way that I can sometimes knock out so many essays in so short a period of time. I don’t sketch them out and then write. I just start typing.

    When you do a post about a recent paper, do you ever consider shooting an e-mail to the authors inviting them to stop by and comment?

    Now you are getting into something that would offset my fast-typing advantage. What I have found is that I usually don’t have to shoot anyone an e-mail. If I am critical of Vinod Khosla, he knows and sometimes sends me an e-mail (or calls me). Look at my Coskata post last year. Wes Bolsen contacted me immediately. (Another Coskata post coming this evening). And then on my latest post critical of Michael Spitzauer, he drops by and makes a comment defending himself.

    It wouldn’t really matter much in this case. Here we have a study paid for by the ethanol lobby in a state with a stated desire to go to some of these higher ethanol blends. It’s like trusting some of the research done by the cigarette companies. Who knows, maybe it’s great research? But until one or more independents replicates the results, they are suspect.

    After all, do ethanol companies accept any negative studies done by oil companies? Of course not. They jump through hoops trying to associate any negative press to the oil companies. (Pimentel is a good example of someone who has been badly smeared as a tool of the oil companies).

    RR

  19. I didn’t see mentioned at all in this an E85 specific engine with a high compression ratio to make use of the higer octane.

    Check my earlier link to “All BTUs Are Not Created Equally.”

    RR

  20. “By the way, I have no idea what you are talking about here.”

    I has no trouble understanding Dennis Moore. It may be a matter of perspective. My alma mater is another big ten land grant college planted in the middle of an ocean of corn. In fact my senior project involved alternate methods of drying corn because we were in the middle of a sea of rotting corn because there was a shortage of propane or natural gas.

    “It’s like trusting some of the research done by the cigarette companies.”

    No it is not. This is a specious argument. I am tired of fold from UC Berkly and Cornell explain why those us who produced the energy imported to California and NY are not doing it right.

    When universities do research to support local industry, it is not spin it is common sense. When the clueless elite do research to support local politicians, it is not independent.

  21. I has no trouble understanding Dennis Moore.

    Nor did I. I was just pointing out that what he was suggesting was incorrect.

    No it is not. This is a specious argument.

    It is precisely the same. It is research paid for by a vested interest that gave results that favored the vested interest. Whether the research is accurate or inaccurate, it certainly requires replication by an independent lab. That is exactly the issue with the cigarette companies. They sponsor research, and the research is favorable. Was the research valid? Maybe some of it was, but nobody is going to accept it unless an outside agency validates it.

    I am tired of fold from UC Berkly and Cornell explain why those us who produced the energy imported to California and NY are not doing it right.

    Maybe you don’t understand why you aren’t doing it right? I bet if you had to use electricity that originated as coal to enable production of just about the same amount of electricity produced by solar energy, you would understand that. And I bet you wouldn’t think that was the brightest idea anyone ever had. Unless of course you were a beneficiary of such a scheme.

    When universities do research to support local industry, it is not spin it is common sense.

    Oh brother! This research was commissioned by the industry that would benefit from a positive outcome. As I said, maybe it’s good research, maybe it isn’t. It certainly gives a counter-intuitive result. But if you don’t think there is reason to challenge it, you lack any semblance of objectivity on the matter.

    RR

  22. I am tired of fold from UC Berkly and Cornell explain why those us who produced the energy imported to California and NY are not doing it right.

    By the way, since you are the same genius who thought it was such a great idea to build ethanol plants in Oregon – which I have long argued was a stupid idea for obvious reasons that you probably still don’t understand – I think we can safely conclude that your grasp of ethanol issues is tenuous at best. It didn’t take a genius to see the problems with that business model, which not surprisingly has resulted in bankruptcy.

    You are a booster, nothing more. If you would like more examples of where your grasp of ethanol issues is very one-dimensional, let me know. We can discuss any of these comments by you, if you like:

    The claim that corn ethanol has driven up food prices has been debunked a long time ago. In fact it is hard to find much wrong with corn ethanol at all.

    If you are a Texas oilman or battery maker, ethanol is a threat.

    Ethanol has already replaced 8% of gasoline.

    RR

  23. Oregon? Do you mean Washington State? I do not follow the Free Republic of Oregon wrt to ethanol very much. Oregon does have great resources for different kinds of biomass.

    Oregon and Washington State are places I like go and will likely retire there.

  24. Oregon? Do you mean Washington State?

    No, I meant Oregon. This is you in March 2007:

    There are two ethanol facilities under construction in Oregon that should replace about 7.5% of the gasoline demand. Way to go Oregon.

    This was the situation two years later:

    Ethanol maker Cascade Grain files Chapter 11

    A company that opened a $200 million ethanol plant in Clatskanie (Oregon) last year has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

    Here was a comment after the story:

    The other thing you won’t read in The Oregonian is that the other ethanol plant in Oregon, the Pacific Ethanol plant in Boardman is almost bankrupt too. Pacific Ethanol stock is now at $0.40 / share, after dropping a dime this week and has just signed a forbearance agreement with its lenders on certain loan covenant defaults. Remember these two companies got generous tax credits from your government to build those plants which generated a paltry 75 jobs. Ethanol was supposed to “lower the price of gas at the pump” according to Charles Carlson, President of Cascade Grain, during public hearings for our mandatory ethanol bill in 2007. The only thing that got lowered was your gas mileage because Oregon has the highest gas prices in the Northwest, when you subtract taxes, and has had for months. Ethanol is now more expensive than gasoline.

    Now, I maintain that if you knew a bit more about the ethanol that you cheerlead for, it was easy to spot this one coming. I warned about West Coast ethanol plants in 2006.

    Oregon and Washington State are places I like go and will likely retire there.

    Well then we actually have something in common. The wife wants to retire to Montana. I told her today “Fine, but I am going to Oregon.”

    RR

  25. RR

    You have asked be to be civil but it is not easy when you say thing like,

    “since you are the same genius who thought it was such a great idea to build ethanol plants in Oregon – which I have long argued was a stupid idea for obvious reasons that you probably still don’t understand – I think we can safely conclude that your grasp of ethanol issues is tenuous at best.”

    Based on my very reserved observation.

    “There are two ethanol facilities under construction in Oregon that should replace about 7.5% of the gasoline demand. Way to go Oregon.”

    So please do not take this wrong. Have you been to Boardman, Oregon? How many of the annual “Harvesting Clean Energy” conferences have you attend in in places like Pasco, Spokane, and Boise?

    If you has you would not say something like,

    “which generated a paltry 75 jobs”.

    Yes, I am a cheerleader for creating rural jobs in the PNW using biomass. More than that, I was paid cheerleader. I started by working on local environment issues but recognized CAFO and forest heath issues provided many opportunities to manage the environment and produce energy better than past practices.

    I have not done a RCA on the failure of the Boardman project. However, there are many obvious reasons why producing biomass energy in that region is great idea.

  26. You have asked be to be civil but it is not easy when you say thing like,

    But don’t you see that you set the tone for that?

    How many of the annual “Harvesting Clean Energy” conferences have you attend in in places like Pasco, Spokane, and Boise?

    I have been working with a group in Sedro Woolley for about a year now. Been up there twice to meet with them and discuss their biomass problem.

    If you has you would not say something like,

    I didn’t say that. It was someone commenting after that story I quoted.

    RR

  27. Sedro Woolley? So no, you have not been to Boardman.

    I have been to Wattcom County several times on dairy waste issues. Also Tillamook, South Western Oregon, Magic Valley and Yakima Valley. Lest we forget other environmental issues of the Methow Valley, Palouse, and Columbia Basin.

    Since Boardman is more than 300 miles from Sedro Woolley with entirely different climate, soils, geography and infrastructure for energy and transportation there may be obvious reason that RR does not know about.

    I can see why someone who flies into Seattle and drives though an urban area to Sedro Woolley would think 75 jobs is ‘paltry’ but having been to Boardman many times, 75 jobs is just one obvious reason why an ethanol plant might be built there.

    Some of my earliest memories is growing up in what used to be a rural area overlooking Puget Sound. However, I have also learned to love the semiarid region of the PNW. A picture is worth a 1000 words.

    http://www.iwindsurf.com/windandwhere.iws?regionID=219&siteID=244&Isection=Windcam

  28. Sedro Woolley? So no, you have not been to Boardman.

    Again with the conclusion jumping. I most certainly have been to Boardman. I have a brother-in-law who lives in Oregon, and we have drive all over the state. I have also consulted on a biofuels project just outside Portland.

    But you are missing the bigger point. It isn’t only about job creation. Lots of places need jobs. Why don’t we build a new DVD manufacturing facility there? Or a new GM plant? There are good reasons. There are also good reasons that it doesn’t make good economic sense to put an ethanol plant there. I don’t think you get the overall picture of why that is.

    I can see why someone who flies into Seattle and drives though an urban area to Sedro Woolley would think 75 jobs is ‘paltry’ but having been to Boardman many times, 75 jobs is just one obvious reason why an ethanol plant might be built there.

    I don’t know how many ways I need to spell it out to you, but I didn’t make the comment about 75 jobs.

  29. Watching you debate these guys is like watching a dual between a howitzer and a pea shooter. Lord knows I have done my share of debate with biofuel missionaries (as George Monbiot calls them) as witnessed here and here.

  30. RR wrote,

    “Again with the conclusion jumping.”

    I asked a direct question for which I did not get a direct answer. Portland is a different place too.

    While I have also driven all over the place, I never thought it qualified me to discount the opinions of those that have lived there.

    RR wrote,

    “But you are missing the bigger point.”

    That is RR jumping to a conclusion. So RR, if you would state the most ‘obvious’ conclusion that an ethanol plants should not be built in Boardman, I will use some of the 20 year+ experience I have in the energy and environmental field to explain the big picture to you.

  31. While I have also driven all over the place, I never thought it qualified me to discount the opinions of those that have lived there.

    You know, I don’t think I need to drive to Anchorage to understand that setting up a banana farm there might not be a great idea. You might think it’s just peachy, because of all the jobs it might bring. That’s the kind of one-dimensional thinking you display over ethanol.

    So RR, if you would state the most ‘obvious’ conclusion that an ethanol plants should not be built in Boardman, I will use some of the 20 year+ experience I have in the energy and environmental field to explain the big picture to you.

    First off, that run-on sentence is nonsensical. And don’t forget there’s one bankruptcy in Oregon and another near-bankruptcy that says you don’t understand the big picture. But you want to explain the big picture to me, despite the fact that I forewarned of these problems in 2006 (because I understood the problems with the business model) while you were cheerleading? You need to recognize sometimes when you are completely out of your depth. I see right through your ’20+ year’ bluster. So did Russ Finley above. It might impress someone else, though, who doesn’t see that you don’t understand the subject material.

    RR

  32. “I forewarned of these problems in 2006”

    Which problems?

    See despite RR’s sarcasm and continued personal attacks, we are getting closer.

    Is there something inherently wrong with ethanol in general, or is there a problem with Boardman, or a problem with the specif business model?

  33. I was just pointing out that what he was suggesting was incorrect.

    I was not incorrect. We discussed positive and negative spin. Most researchers that I know present their work in a positive light. I looked at the link at the link to your graduate power point presentation. Looks pretty optimistic, I didn’t see the slide for “why this won’t work”. That’s OK, I have done many similar presentations and they look the same. I only put in the cover my back slide if I need it. So I didn’t have a problem with the positive spin in the ACE report, I found it typical. It’s a matter of opinion and we disagree.

    I suggested that you were putting a negative spin on this. This was true. You opted to compare the data to the tier 2 gas economy, instead of the expected economy based on the energy content of the fuel as shown in figure 9. You explained that this was the bar set by those who you were arguing against, and I understand that, I just wanted to point out that there is a better way to look at the data, and this is the way that the data is presented in the paper.

    This way instead of saying that data was worse 72% of the time, I would say the fuel economy numbers were as expected 44% of the time, 16% were worse, and 40% were better. (just eyeballed)

    But the thing that bothered me most was calling the results that were positve (by your standard) outliers. The reason this got to me was because I am an analytical chemist. I give people data all the time, and nobody ever says “this data is just what I expected. Are you sure it’s right?” but when I deliver bad news or something unexpected they question the methods and look for mistakes. And I don’t like to use the term outlier until I have proven that it is a statistical outlier. Sloppy use of the term outlier is an easy way for people to write off inconvenient data.

    So you asked me to look at figures 10 and 11. 11 looks as expected but 10 has some points that don’t fit as compared to 11. I agree, but then look at 12 and 13, these don’t fit the expected line at all (actually for 13, the expected line might just be close the the least squares linear regression, but the correlation coeficient, the R-Squared value if you will, would be terrible) I see 1 plot that look as expected and 3 that are not as expected. Maybe what we expected is wrong.

    So now we can speculate as to what is going on. I think it has something to do with each car’s engine control unit and how it responds to different amounts of ethanol. This speculation is based on the observation that the flex fuel vehicle which is designed to deal with various amounts of ethanol did better than expected 100% of the time.

    We agree that more work is needed and independent replication is essential.

    Now you can get back to the all important energy discussion relating to who knows more about Oregon. I myself drove through Oregon when I was about 5 years old in the mid 70s. I also played the game Oregon Trail on an Apple II computer in 6th grade. But that’s about it, so I will let Robert and Kit handle that one.

    Thanks

  34. I was not incorrect. We discussed positive and negative spin.

    The specific statement was I referring to on your part was incorrect:

    The researchers are clearly comparing their results to the BTU adjusted expected fuel economy, but you compare to the unadjusted fuel economy.

    I am also looking at the adjusted (expected) fuel economy. It’s just that we have most points falling on the line as expected, and one occasionally that is well outside of what is expected. Further, it appears to be completely random. So I am not saying “Wow, you lose fuel economy with ethanol.” That would be looking at the unadjusted results. What I am saying is that you lose what would be expected on a BTU basis, except for a few points that look oddly out of line (and so far haven’t been replicated). This is how we got cold fusion.

    But the thing that bothered me most was calling the results that were positve (by your standard) outliers. The reason this got to me was because I am an analytical chemist.

    Had the results been as far below the line as they were above, I would have also said they were outliers.

    Incidentally, one of my undergrad degrees is in chemistry, and I was two years into my Ph.D. on analytical chemistry when I switched over to chemical engineering. Here’s a analogy for you. Say I am mixing water and an acid in a series of steps in which I increase the amount of water each time. I measure the pH at each step. I plot the line of pH versus the molar concentration of acid. The points fall along a line, except one – right in the middle of the plot – shows a basic pH. The points before and after are both acidic. That is clearly an outlier, and before I conclude that I have discovered some marvelous new chemistry, I am going to replicate that test in every way possible, and probably have a colleague do so from scratch as well. But if that basic pH point is somehow of potential benefit to the people funding my research, I think it’s going to be hard to convince anyone that it’s really something, without independent verification. That’s the way I see these results.

    RR

  35. See despite RR’s sarcasm and continued personal attacks, we are getting closer.

    First, it isn’t a personal attack to respond to your boast that you will use your 20+ years of experience to teach me a thing or two. I work with a guy like that, and he uses that experience thing as a shield. Thinks it protects him from criticism of his bad ideas. It isn’t a personal attack to say you are out of your depth. Clearly on this topic you are. Now if I call you an idiot, that is a personal attack. Finally, you have to stop speaking in cryptic sentences. I don’t know what “we are getting closer” is supposed to mean. Closer to what?

    Is there something inherently wrong with ethanol in general,

    Of course not. Ethanol itself is a fine fuel. If you make it mostly out of fossil fuel, it really isn’t going to do much to solve our energy problems.

    or is there a problem with Boardman, or a problem with the specif business model?

    There is a problem with building plants on the West Coast, which as I have said I pointed out in 2006:


    Ethanol Investing: Counterpoint

    I was warning against investing in ethanol before ethanol stocks fell by 90%. I did a case study on Pacific Ethanol, which was trading about $20 (and today is at 29 cents) and actually mentioned Boardman in that article.

    Now, any way you want to slice it, I was warning about building ethanol plants on the West Coast 2.5 years ago (for reasons spelled out in the article), and today they are in serious financial difficulty. The same analysis holds true for East Coast ethanol plants, but it was Pacific Ethanol garnering all of the attention at that time. So maybe some day you might want to give me some benefit of the doubt and presume I do know just a little bit about this.

    RR

  36. I will start giving RR the benefit of doubt when he starts using precise language of an engineer or scientists and stops passing along information from the popular press without checking that it is accurate.

    Boardman is not on the west coast. It is 200 miles inland in a large agricultural area.

    “Local grain supplies, preferably within 50 miles of the plant, are important for keeping costs down. Yet California produces little corn.”

    Boardman is not California is it is in a large agricultural area.

    “Of course not. Ethanol itself is a fine fuel. If you make it mostly out of fossil fuel, it really isn’t going to do much to solve our energy problems.”

    What problems are those, you sound like the current loon in the Whitehouse?

    Boardman is also home to a large coal and 2 natural gas fired powered plants. That daily PRB coal train could add a few cars to make ethanol. There is also a new dairy farm anaerobic digester and several large popular plantations.

    Climate around Board supports huge dairy and feedlot heads.

    Transportation fuels for the region do up river by barge providing reverse transportation.

    Summarizing, has supply of grain, Boardman has natural gas and coal available, Boardman demand for ethanol byproducts, Boardman has transportation.

    @Dennis

    Drove through Minnesota a couple years ago. It looked like there was lots of corn and wind (and maybe not much else). Do I need to know more to understand why, Minnesota like eastern Washington State and Oregon is building wind and biofuels faclities?

  37. Kit P,

    Boardman is not on the west coast?

    According to wikipedia, Oregon is a West Coast State.

    “…Do I need to know more to understand why, Minnesota like eastern Washington State and Oregon is building wind and biofuels faclities?…”

    Imperium Renewables is on the verge of bankruptcy and have just been slapped with a duty by Europe for exporting our subsidized fuel to them. Poof goes the energy security argument for subsidizing biodiesel.

    Little off topic but according to this recent study, corn ethanol is worse from a GHG perspective than just letting the fields go fallow. Which makes the whole GHG mitigation argument for corn ethanol moot. This isn’t the first study to show corn ethanol is worse for GHG emissions than gasoline.

  38. I will start giving RR the benefit of doubt when he starts using precise language of an engineer or scientists and stops passing along information from the popular press without checking that it is accurate.

    Kit, when your arguments resort to parsing language of whether or not Oregon – inland or not – is “West Coast”, you need to step back and reflect on how the argument is going for you. If you can’t see, it isn’t going well.

    Boardman is not California is it is in a large agricultural area.

    Kit, you are embarrassing yourself by showing that you still don’t understand the issues. Boardman is not a large corn-producing area. The whole state doesn’t produce enough corn to support an ethanol industry. Therein lies the problem. Is your understanding of this really this basic? (Please don’t ask me why it doesn’t make sense to ship corn it).

    What problems are those, you sound like the current loon in the Whitehouse?

    Right. What problems would those be? This coming from someone who is 1). A cheerleader; 2). Has shown a poor understanding of the issues. 3). Still can’t see the problems of producing ethanol in an area that has already led to bankruptcies. That last point should be enough to convince you that you don’t understand enough about the issue to even understand the problems.

    Summarizing, has supply of grain, Boardman has natural gas and coal available, Boardman demand for ethanol byproducts, Boardman has transportation.

    You are wasting my time. Again, if your understanding is so poor, spend some time learning a bit more before trying to argue with people who know a lot more about it than you do. Here’s a hint for you. It isn’t what Boardman does or does not have. It is what the competition has relative to Boardman. I explained that in the linked essay. If this keeps up, I am going to send you a bill.

    I know your pride won’t let you, but you should really step back and critically evaluate your performance in this ‘debate’ before deciding whether to continue.

    RR

Comments are closed.