Corn priced at $3.46 a bushel. Ethanol production 3.5% aheadof 2013, estimate 14.1 biln gal for 2014

[Bill USA]

6. the research by Argonne National Laboratory (Dept of Energy) covers it better than I can (link)

but very briefly - The Oil industry wanted Congress to pass a law indemnifying the oil companies against damages from lawsuits over the oil companies using cancer causing MTBE in their gas (to increase octane and prevent engine pre-ignition). When the Congress refused to do this, the Oil companies began buying all the Ethanol the industry could produce to replace the MTBE with ethanol. MTBE increases octane and so does ethanol. Whether there is a difference between mileage for gas with MTBE and gasoline with 10% ethanol it would be very small. I think what you may have heard is that there is a mileage deficit for FFVs running on E85 compared to operation on gasoline. This is entirely due to the fact that auto manufacturers are selling FFVs which are not designed to take full advantage of ethanol's high octane property.

Here are some links to the Argonne National Laboratory's latest study of ethanol - from corn and other feedstocks. NOw, even with the mileage deficit - that the FFVs are stuck with, because ethanol has a smaller carbon footprint than gasoline, even with the mileage deficit, you still come out with a reduction of GHG emissions using ethanol of 34% (per mile driven) vs gasoline - that's at the 50th percentile (which among scientific and statistically aware people is considered the most representative number).



Well-to-wheels energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol from corn, sugarcane and cellulosic biomass for US use

Energy ratio for ethanol (energy in fuel per unit of energy consumed to make the fuel) from various feedstocks

Ethanol GHG emissions reductions (vs gasoline) for various feedstocks

Any mileage deficit with 10% ethanol fuel is basically imperceptible to the average human driver (if you were a computer calculating mileage down to the hundredth of a mile per gallon maybe you would notice - maybe). Ethanol demand increased dramatically when congress did not pass a bill indemnifying Oil companies against any damages from lawsuits brought against them because of using the cancer causing MTBE. The oil companies started buying ALL THE ETHANOL the industry could make to substitute for MTBE - because Ethanol boosts octane too and does not cause cancer. If there is any difference in mileage between gas with MTBE (needed to prevent engine knock) and gas blended with 10% ethanol it would be extremely small. The mileage deficit you speak of exists for E85 vehicles (maybe this is where you heard of it) because we are burning ethanol in FFVs which are NOT OPTIMIZED for ethanol use. Cars optimized for ethanol's higher octane property get as good or BETTER mileage than the same car would get using gasoline. see below...



[hr]

RE fuel efficiency. All engine designers, know that you can get more power per unit displacement of the engine using higher octane fuel - IF YOU SET UP THE ENGINE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE HIGHER OCTANE PROPERTY. We do not require the auto manufacturers to sell FFVs which take advantage of ethanol's higher octane (115) vs gasoline (~93 for high test gasoline). IF they did, you would get as good or BETTER fuel efficiency with ethanol than with gasoline. This could be done with a turbo-charger with an electronically activated waste-gate (for when gasoline was being used) and ignition controls which adjusted spark advance for ethanol or gasoline content of the fuel. As far as E10 is concerned the auto manufacturers no doubt DO have the ignition timing set to take advantage of the extra octane provided by ethanol - to prevent engine pre-ignition.

Ethanol Vehicle Challenge 1998 - about a dozen college Engineering student teams were given Chevrolet Malibu FFVs to Optimize for Ethanol. ALL the teams returned Optimized Malibus which got BETTER fuel efficiency than the stock Malibus did on gasoline in the Urban driving cycle. The three best teams returned with Optimized Malibus which got 13% to 15% BETTER fuel efficiency than stock Malibus got on gasoline for Over-all driving (both urban and highway driving cycles).

this is accomplished by using the optimum spark advance and turbocharging to increase the combustion chamber pressure. Ethanol's higher octane allows this to be done without experiencing pre-Ignition (engine knock). The Engineering students achieved this without (obviously) downsizing the engines! Which manufacturers could do and which would increase the fuel consumption advantage of ethanol.

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/C/19.pdf


Three MIT scientists designed a Ethanol Boosted Direct Injection engine (turbocharged) which achieves ~30% better fuel efficiency than a conventional Internal Combustion engine of comparable power.

Direct Injection Ethanol Boosted Gasoline Engines: Biofuel Leveraging For Cost-Effective Reduction of Oil Dependence and CO2 Emissions - Cohn, D.R., Bromberg, L. & Heywood, J.B.

http://www.ethanolboost.com/LFEE-2005-01.pdf

Ethanol Boosting Systems


The Fuel Freedom Foundation conducted a study where they modified engines to run on alcohol (both methanol and ethanol) involving new rings and seals AND modifying the Engine Control Module to take better advantage of the higher octane of alcohol fuels. they achieved 17% better fuel efficiency, as miles per gallon consumed, with ethanol (E85) and 20% better fuel efficiency with Methanol (M60 and M100) than was predicted by the Government (the Government calculates ethanol's fuel efficiency based solely on Ethanol's Heating Value relative to gasoline's.)

http://www.fuelfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/White-Paper_GGE-Scientific-Report-final1.pdf


...IF WE WERE SERIOUS ABOUT GETTING THE MOST OUT OF RENEWABLE BIOFUELS WE WOULD HAVE REQUIRED AUTO MANUFACTURERS PRODUCE FFVS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ETHANOL'S HIGHER OCTANE. We would get better fuel efficiency and GREATER GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM ETHANOL (OR METHANOL - which can be made from many different feedstocks - e.g. forestry product waste, agriculatural waste - right now and blended with gas and Ethanol). MOre biofuels means more GHG emissions reductions AND GREATER ENERGY SECURITY.

[font size="4"] So why aren't we getting all that is possible out of biofuels? - ask EXXON-Mobil et al.[/font]