171 Comments

David Blume - Alcohol Can be A Gas! Book is worth getting

Expand full comment

Farm the farm bill

Expand full comment

Interesting, always believed ethanol was a highly politically motivated additive. Thanks for the other side of the story.

Expand full comment

Ethanol is bad news. We are using food to make fuel and also the whole process has a negative energy balance - it takes more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than the latent energy left in a gallon of ethanol at the end of the process. If one is worried about "greenhouse" emission this isn't a good way to go about it. Also, ethanol causes performance robbing engine deposits and thus higher engine out emissions and less performance. If one looks at BP/Amoco Ultimate - the base fuel is double refined and contains no ethanol. Not only is it the best gasoline on the market but (1) requires less fuel additives to keep an engine spotlessly clean inside and (2) it has more latent heat per gallon - thus one gets more mileage out of one gallon. Ethanol is TERRIBLE for durability as compared to pure gasoline. There are no positives to ethanol - it is driven by the Corn farmer lobby and costs consumers billions each year while providing no value to society.

Expand full comment

Having worked 35 years as a chemical engineer in the oil refining business, 8 years in California no less, I have to signal that many of your facts here are wrong. A few examples include: reasons why cars knock, why MTBE was disbanded (not due to toxicity), why ethanol is mandated in gasoline (because its an oxygenate) etc. Also, ethanol is hygroscopic (mixed with small amounts of water it falls out of solution leaving low octane gasoline in your tank that will produce a knock). I don't think I'm being defensive of my industry to say the level of nefariousness is probably overstated here. I don't pretend to know the details of what managements knew about the extent of the toxicity of LEL, but keep in mind Refineries can use hydrocarbon blending components to produce high octane gasoline without additives, it's just more expensive to produce. Because LEL is so cheap and far more effective in octane enhancement than any other agent, I'm sure it seemed like a fabulous way to lower gasoline prices for everyone. If it was obvious at first this would be toxic, refiners would have no problem if it was banned. The higher prices are always passed to the consumer. But LEL was no boon for the refiner. Look up how profitable oil refineries have been in the last 40 years. Lucky to get 5%. Cigarette companies on the other hand take a direct hit if cigarettes are found to be unhealthy; therefore, their incentive to lie and deceive was far greater in the past and their behavior was abominable. Maybe the Oil Industry was just as bad, but it wouldn't make sense, given the elimination of LEL has basically no impact on profits. Much more importantly than all of this is the position you have been taking in many of your articles that the drive to reduce CO2 emissions is valid in general, though you are clear this is not true in all cases. I'm very aligned with most of your positions, but I think you would do a great service to educate yourself about why spending trillions of dollars to divert away from liquid fuels will only save us a fraction of a global warming degree by 2100, and how those resources would be infinitely better served by either addressing different ways to stop global warming or preparing for that extra fraction of a degree in 80 years. There are so many positives tied to increased CO2 and increased warming that are never discussed. Surely, we at least need to show pros and cons to get a better picture of how serious the problem is.

Expand full comment

Thank you for articulating the real subject of this article in the way you did. It not only informed me of unknown information (anti-knocking,not fuel). As a human I tend to get caught up in my ego and start thinking I know most things(ha) but then I get humbled, then remember how small I am and I smile. Thank you for taking the time to share with strangers.

Expand full comment

We would all like to see what engineering units you are using to measure energy positive and energy negative. You give the impression that a numerical analysis is beyond your ken. Having gone to jschool, that would not be unusual. Being literate is, of course, essential. Being innumerate confines you to hyperbole.

Expand full comment

Several countries used Mangenese additives that appear non-toxic and which would not lead to water absorption in the fuel. Also it would be good to mention the pioneering work of geoscientist Clare Patterson who risked his position at Caltech to expose the danger of lead (Pb) in fuel.

Expand full comment

But, the increased farming and reduced buffer zone along the Mississippi river have drastically increased the fertilizer runoff into the gulf of Mexico. There the fertilizer is used by the algae and created one off the largest dead zones for fish in the world...., blossoming every spring.

Expand full comment

Our friend Tom Migley went on to invent the refrigerant R12, which depletes the ozone layer and is a huge contributor to global warming. Has any other human in history done more damage to Planet Earth than Reg Midgley?

Expand full comment

Please be so kind as to define your terms

Energy +ve

Energy -ve

In what engineering units is your measure?

Pleases recall the words of Lord Kelvin, after whom the temperature scale is named:

"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind: it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science."

William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin

Expand full comment

You might not understand this, but some of your readers will

PRODUCING ETHANOL CONSUMES MORE ENERGY THAN THAT DERIVED FROM BURING IT AS A FUEL.

ALL OF YOUR WISHFUL THINKING TO THE CONTRARY DOES NOT CHANGE THE PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY

Expand full comment

Very informative article - i love the way you look at things with a fresh pair of eyes. Would you consider doing a deep dive on Acid Rain. I have a feeling that it matters.

Expand full comment

Marc, this is NOT about substantiation or not and your site links are very good and very informative. It's about your anger in telling people to "Shut their mouth". Calm down, make your points and leave people to make up their own minds without inciting or degrading them.

Expand full comment

Doomberg please ensure you exert some editorial control over comments made on this site. I have no objections to people disagreeing, but once the language becomes inflamed I certainly lose interest in reading comments. It should matter whether an individual is right, believes themselves to be right or simply has an opinion that they are right; aggressive personal comments and insults should not be tolerated and this thread has one individual who seems to be just plain angry....

Expand full comment

Dear Mr. Rauch,

What do you offer as proof of your asertion?

Irwin

Expand full comment