The LA Times has reported that CA will begin subsidizing E85. Now, I know that I’ve made my views relatively clear, so it should come to no shock that I’m not really pleased with California’s decision to push this form of energy (at the very least in its current incarnation). What is a bit shocking (at least to me) is that California is - for the most part - quite well informed when it comes to these things and often makes some good decisions. This one is not though and seems more like hopping on the political E85 bandwagon.

Just as a refresher the reason why I think this is a horrible idea is because E85 produced from corn (which is what they’re hinting at in the article) has net impact on the environment that is worse than gasoline. This is due to the fact that refining ethanol from corn is a very inefficient process. Couple that with the fact that with the fact that current E85 powertrains actually have lower fuel efficiency and higher emissions than gasoline or diesel engines and it’s just silly. Oh and as I may have mentioned before the jury seems to be leaning toward the fact that the ethanol emissions may in fact be worse for the environment than those from pure hydrocarbon based fuels.

Last two issues aside, I would have thought that the fact that it takes a good deal more fossil fuels to create ethanol from corn would be enough to prevent this from happening. The really odd thing is that it’s not like California is even completely unaware of this. Their 2007 Climate Action Programs document states:

[...] When used as a trans-portation fuel, a gallon of cellulosic ethanol (made from rice straw or sugar cane) produces 70 percent less greenhouse gases than a gallon of gasoline. [source (PDF)]

So clearly someone over there understands at least part of what’s going on. Why then this move? It’s a pretty bold one and somewhat troubling too. Up till this point I was rather happy that E85 wasn’t pushed more heavily in California. To me it showed that they realized what the problems with it were and they were holding out for a more sustainable energy product. This then goes back on that in a big way, not only for that state (with its huge population) but because California is in many ways a trend setter when it comes to environmental policy.

The fact alone that it will become a state law in 2010 that all fuel sold in the state will become an E10 blend (nearly double the current ethanol in the mix) will have far reaching impacts. Throw subsidies into the mix and at worst you will get a lot of adoption (which will not be good for the environment or our economy) and at the very least you tie up government funds in a poorly thought out program.

In part 1 of Why I hate E85 I examined some of the background principles at work and why alcohol based fuels can actually be good. This post will be more about why I think corn-based E85 is a waste of time from a technology stand point and bad for our economy.

The cliff-hanger I left with was that flex-fuel vehicles are a not designed to be run only on a fuel with a high amount of ethanol, hence the term flex-fuel. After all that talking I did about octane ratings, compression ratios and energy extraction it should be obvious why this matters. You have to run a flex-fuel vehicle at a low compression ratio so that normal gas doesn’t pre-ignite or knock. So what you get is an engine that can’t extract as much work from a larger volume of fuel (richer air/fuel ratio) and that means lower miles per gallon.

It’s not even better for the environment. With a non-optimal compression ratio the E85 fuel actually gives off more emissions. And despite what the advertising would like you to believe, ethanol emissions aren’t that great.

But it goes deeper.  Julius beat me to the punch and did a great job talking about many of the reasons why corn is a horrible choice to create ethanol. I won’t bother reiterating any of those points here, just read the post yourself and ask yourself why politics is interfering with the logical choices we should be making to insure a responsible energy policy. This is the main reason why I dislike E85.

Another ridiculous fact is that often the price of E85 and gas are locked. So if gas goes up 10 cents, E85 also goes up 10 cents. Now E85 is 15% gasoline, so if it goes up 1.5 cents that would make sense. Unfortunately people are used to fuel costs going up together and so they take advantage. Everyone wants to get rich quick.

If we were selling cars with power trains designed to run only ethanol as well as creating the fuel from a source that was actually renewable (like switchgrass) then I wouldn’t have to write this post. Unfortunately our current policies are half-assed attempts that are not only ineffective but might actually cause more problems.

As I mentioned it’s the 2008 NAIAS here in Detroit and “being green” is one of the biggest things here. Everyone is showing off their alternative-fuel vehicles. Besides all the hybrids (that’s a topic worthy of a post all its own) and the smattering of plug-ins and hydrogen fuel cell cars, E85 seems to dominate when talking about “getting environmentally friendly.” Heck, even the racing segment is getting into the mix with the Corvette C6.4 GT1 team switching to E85 for the 2008 season. (Side note: Compuware is the team sponsor and despite my dislike of E85 that car is sweet.)

Despite it’s seemingly unstoppable popularity, our current approach to E85 ethanol based fuel isn’t really the best idea in my opinion. It’s not that I like being tied to petroleum based gasoline or think that research into alternative propulsion systems is a bad idea; far from it. It’s just that I really like popcorn… and that E85 is more like a stopgap measure that isn’t even all that effective. If it is created from corn then the total energy life cycle of E85 is actually less efficient than producing gasoline from oil. Hard to believe? This three part post will help to inform, I hope.

Now, being the son of an engineer who worked at FoMoCo for over 40 years (much of it in powertrain R&D) and of course being a native son of Detroit this kind of car stuff is in my blood, so allow me to indulge for a bit in part one of this post and explain first a bit about the engineering principles at work here. I will assume you don’t know much about internal combustion engines but if you do feel free to fact check me and please don’t feel like I’m talking down to you.

Read the rest of this entry »