Ethanol: Where do you stand?

I love Brazil. I hate tree huggers . But being that it is the season of caring and sharing, I am willing to make an exception if for one day, only.

In light of today's news that U.S. car makers and engine manufacturers are challenging the E.P.A's recent decision to increase ethanol content of gasoline sold in the U.S. to 15%, I am feeling a bit nostalgic.

Here Comes Another Flashback...

When the grass turns white from snow and Christmas lights set the night aglow I reminisce and do remember where I was just last September...

There won't be rhymes, but there is reason and to my oil traders...perhaps treason.

There I am in Sao Paulo gridlock, chatting away with my cabbie. Well...perhaps chatting is an overstatement. My Spanish is broken and hobbled beyond repair and he sticks to the script of only knowing Portuguese.

Naturally, the minute I call his (then) President, Luiz Inacio (a.k.a. Lula ) da SIlva a damn commie , he readjust his rear view mirror to stare me dead in the eyes.

The conversation then suddenly blooms...it seems his English was far less broken then my Spanish.

Though we spent most of the time talking about women and food...mostly how Brazilian women consumed more, yet looked.... Well, you can figure the rest...let me not digress further than I already have.

The point of the story is that this guy was very grateful to both the Brazilian politicians and industry for their use of Ethanol as a gasoline alternative. He was the first to admit that it made his daily drives feel like he was stuck in a magic farting phone booth, but also explained that he would need to seek another career if his country was as dependent on the light and the sweet as the U.S. is.

Our conversation didn't reach the depth I would have liked by the time we reached the airport. But one thing is certain regardless of whether we touched on it or not...

Gasoline prices are predicted to rise again in 2011 and have recently done so in small increments at your local pump. Are the effects on the macro economy, markets and the individual consumer worth the headache?

With Brazil demonstrating how excess commodities such as sugar can be put to good use is it time we made a stronger push for ethanol use?

Why or why not?

 

The key reason that the USA hasn't adopted higher ethanol production is due to the fact that producing corn based ethanol is extremely less efficient than producing it from sugar cane. Unless serious technological breakthroughs occur in the near future, corn based ethanol will not be viable in this country. The US government has enacted countless subsidies and tariffs to help foster domestic ethanol consumption to no avail. Many Brazilian ethanol corporations have opened refineries in the Caribbean to take advantage of the 1984 CBI's free trade status and are avoiding these tariffs. On the flipside, one key consideration is that ethanol has lower energy content than gasoline, yielding worse miles per gallon in cars. Thus, ethanol must be 20-30% cheaper than gasoline for it to be economical to use as a fuel. Also, ethanol based fuel will never provide the power of gasoline based fuel, especially diesel, so gas production will continue to be important, especially for industrial use.

 

Take it from someone who used to live in Kansas. The only people benefiting from domestic ethanol are it's producers. truly nasty stuff, dries up the lakes, burns in the infrared, the increased trucking tears up the highways surrounding the production plants, negative energy output (not sure if this is still the case), the list goes on.

I don't know much about the costs of imported ethanol, but ask yourself this question; why aren't gasoline producers willing to make 15% ethanol blend without government mandates?

Most people don't know enough or care enough about the reduced gas mileage for it to have a serious effect on purchasing gasoline with 15% ethanol. I'll even bet that with the green hype, it would increase sales, prices held constant. This probably means that ethanol is not worth the trouble. I don't want to say forget about it, but I wouldn't take ethanol as a serious long term option here in the states.

 

As for the negative energy ratio: corn based ethanol does have a negative energy ratio (or barely positive). This means that more energy is expended producing the ethanol than the ethanol yields. This isn't the case with sugarcane ethanol. As of 2009 ethanol in Sao Paulo had an energy ratio of 9.3. Not bad...

 

The military is testing jet and diesel fuels made from algae and camelina. If they can scale those up from test batch to commercial production, goodbye corn-based ethanol (and Middle Eastern oil, while we're at it).

The Navy and USAF have some pretty aggressive biofuel-related goals by 2020...that's gonna drive private sector adoption.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of Starwood Points
 

It's a waste. I would put my money on hydrogen...that's where the future lies.

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/

..of course, they have to figure out how to make a car look good, otherwise I won't care how many miles to the gallon it gets.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 

Ethanol from sugarcane is great, more abundant and yields more ethanol than corn. The only hope i think corn has as a fuel crop is utilizing the cellulose in its stalks instead of or along with the starch itself.

Cellulosic ethanol has failed so far on an epic scale mostly due to lack of funding and consolidated efforts (too many technologies competing with each other), but more progressive & higher yielding biofuel production methods such as cellulosic or drop-in fuels, which don't requrie major infrastructure overhauling, are going to be the winners in the long run.

 
nelobynature:
Ethanol from sugarcane is great, more abundant and yields more ethanol than corn. The only hope i think corn has as a fuel crop is utilizing the cellulose in its stalks instead of or along with the starch itself.

Cellulosic ethanol has failed so far on an epic scale mostly due to lack of funding and consolidated efforts (too many technologies competing with each other), but more progressive & higher yielding biofuel production methods such as cellulosic or drop-in fuels, which don't requrie major infrastructure overhauling, are going to be the winners in the long run.

Ethanol from wast wood and waste will drive the future. Producing ethanol from corn is too wasteful.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment. -Styles P
 
eokpar02:

Ethanol from wast wood and waste will drive the future. Producing ethanol from corn is too wasteful.

Ethanol from waste wood will/does power some lumber mills and nearby facilities. That being said, thinking it will make a meaningful dent into overall liquids consumption is delusional. You might want to do a little more due diligence into just how much wood would be needed...

 

Corn ethanol (and algae, most biodiesel ideas), as well as other kookie ideas like hydrogen make absolutely no sense.

SOME renewables make sense in SOME situations: wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, sugarcane ethanol.

Anyone who has more than a passing interest in renewables should read Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air by David MacKay (a digital copy is free online, just google search - Cambridge physicist wrote it because he was tired of all the BS in mainstream thought regarding renewables). Book is actually extremely objective and is full of numbers and facts and makes apples to apples comparisons (which is very key).

This goes to a further point regarding policy in general. Politicians think they can just set a target and it will magically happen, i.e. "Ethanol production will be x by year y". Because very few in the general public do the actual due diligence on whether that's realistic, no one calls them out on the lunacy of their projections. Imagine if Congress passed a law that said "We will have world peace, everyone will be a billionaire, and we will find the fountain of youth...all by 2025". Obviously, such a law would be ridiculous. Many of the laws nations (not just the U.S.) pass with regard to renewables seem equally ridiculous to those with expertise in the energy space.

 

Midas, what makes you think Lulu is a "damn commie?" There was fear and speculation early on his first term that his politics aligned with that of Hugo Chavez, but since then they've proven to be anything but. And a lot of "tree huggers" are opposed to corn based ethanol because it does little (if anything) to reduce green house admissions. In fact, there's evidence that indicates corn based ethanol is actually worse for the environment.

I think corn based ethanol is pointless. All it does is create food inflation. It hardly reduces our independence on foreign oil and it doesn't reduce green house admissions. The only people who benefit from an increase in ethanol are people in the corn business and people who own ag real estate in Nebraska (which is going through the roof).

 
Best Response
Dr Barnaby Fulton:
Midas, what makes you think Lulu is a "damn commie?"

Aside from being a founder of "The Worker's Party"? Aside from vocally guffawing over Lenin? Complaining about the evils of American capitalism while taking our subsidies hat in hand? Aside from "Bolsa Familia"? Aside from "Fome Zero"? Aside from "Menselao"? Aside from the rampant populism and classism? Aside from the Robin Hood chicanery? Aside from the Soviet Block style police force? Aside from enacting a slew of policies that blew up the size of Brazil's already sizable government, which the IMF have already targeted as the cause of the coming Brazilian inflation? Aside from the fact that he's living off the fantastic work of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, while constantly bashing the man in public? Aside from saying things like "I am Brazil"? Not much at all.

There was fear and speculation early on his first term that his politics aligned with that of Hugo Chavez, but since then they've proven to be anything but. And a lot of "tree huggers" are opposed to corn based ethanol because it does little (if anything) to reduce green house admissions. In fact, there's evidence that indicates corn based ethanol is actually worse for the environment.

His politics are just like Chavez's. If you paid actual attention you would know that Lula didn't enact any of his own policies...other than the ones which Brazil will suffer for very soon. The growth of Brazil during his presidential term is all a result of Cardoso's policies and a few other macro factors that he is milking like the prole conductor that he is.

I think corn based ethanol is pointless. All it does is create food inflation. It hardly reduces our independence on foreign oil and it doesn't reduce green house admissions. The only people who benefit from an increase in ethanol are people in the corn business and people who own ag real estate in Nebraska (which is going through the roof).

The U.S. is the world's dominant corn producer. In fact America has so much more corn than anyone else that tactics like these are endemic of what the Fed's discretely tried to do with QE2, i.e. export inflation under the guise of improving market conditions. Corn based ethanol is just a first step, it's not an ends to a means. A way to flex commodity based economic muscle, if you will. Read up on what happened in Iran this weekend and you should be able to connect the dots. You're also ignoring the DDG factor, Brew Spread Options and the tangential indirect effects on Spark Spreads and their formations. The money going into building up this market isn't just buying off Nebraska votes; they are not that valuable.

In addition, when we consider that human corn consumption is on a steady decline and the majority of U.S. corn is used for feeder pigs. It makes sense to try and do something with a commodity which is currently overproduced in spite of what the CME guys try and tell you. That having been said I certainly agree with those who have already mentioned that cane-based Ethanol is a more efficient move than Corn. But then again, this is why I spoke about the cab driver from Sao Paulo, not Stevey from Lincoln.

 
Midas Mulligan Magoo:
Dr Barnaby Fulton:
Midas, what makes you think Lulu is a "damn commie?"

Aside from being a founder of "The Worker's Party"? Aside from vocally guffawing over Lenin? Complaining about the evils of American capitalism while taking our subsidies hat in hand? Aside from "Bolsa Familia"? Aside from "Fome Zero"? Aside from "Menselao"? Aside from the rampant populism and classism? Aside from the Robin Hood chicanery? Aside from the Soviet Block style police force? Aside from enacting a slew of policies that blew up the size of Brazil's already sizable government, which the IMF have already targeted as the cause of the coming Brazilian inflation? Aside from the fact that he's living off the fantastic work of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, while constantly bashing the man in public? Aside from saying things like "I am Brazil"? Not much at all.

There was fear and speculation early on his first term that his politics aligned with that of Hugo Chavez, but since then they've proven to be anything but. And a lot of "tree huggers" are opposed to corn based ethanol because it does little (if anything) to reduce green house admissions. In fact, there's evidence that indicates corn based ethanol is actually worse for the environment.

His politics are just like Chavez's. If you paid actual attention you would know that Lula didn't enact any of his own policies...other than the ones which Brazil will suffer for very soon. The growth of Brazil during his presidential term is all a result of Cardoso's policies and a few other macro factors that he is milking like the prole conductor that he is.

I think corn based ethanol is pointless. All it does is create food inflation. It hardly reduces our independence on foreign oil and it doesn't reduce green house admissions. The only people who benefit from an increase in ethanol are people in the corn business and people who own ag real estate in Nebraska (which is going through the roof).

The U.S. is the world's dominant corn producer. In fact America has so much more corn than anyone else that tactics like these are endemic of what the Fed's discretely tried to do with QE2, i.e. export inflation under the guise of improving market conditions. Corn based ethanol is just a first step, it's not an ends to a means. A way to flex commodity based economic muscle, if you will. Read up on what happened in Iran this weekend and you should be able to connect the dots. You're also ignoring the DDG factor, Brew Spread Options and the tangential indirect effects on Spark Spreads and their formations. The money going into building up this market isn't just buying off Nebraska votes; they are not that valuable.

In addition, when we consider that human corn consumption is on a steady decline and the majority of U.S. corn is used for feeder pigs. It makes sense to try and do something with a commodity which is currently overproduced in spite of what the CME guys try and tell you. That having been said I certainly agree with those who have already mentioned that cane-based Ethanol is a more efficient move than Corn. But then again, this is why I spoke about the cab driver from Sao Paulo, not Stevey from Lincoln.

Classic Midas. +1

looking for that pick-me-up to power through an all-nighter?
 

People hate on corn based ethanol, but fail to realize it is just the beginning. You need to get gas stations offering it and enough cars to be able to run it. Once there is enough outlets and supplies for ethanol you will see a switch towards more productive supplies.

Everyone talks about hydrogen and nat gas, but don't realize most cars have a 15 year life. If everything was instantly switched over we would still depend on a liquid based fuel.

Corn based ethanol--> sugar can--> alge/sorgum/forest waste, etc.

 
alexpasch:
eokpar02:

Ethanol from wast wood and waste will drive the future. Producing ethanol from corn is too wasteful.

Ethanol from waste wood will/does power some lumber mills and nearby facilities. That being said, thinking it will make a meaningful dent into overall liquids consumption is delusional. You might want to do a little more due diligence into just how much wood would be needed...

That's why utilizing the entire contents of the plant matter ex: sugar cane juice (conventional ethanol production) + bagasse (cellulosic ethanol production), is the ideal method to consider if you're to have any significant impact on liquid fuel consumption. Wood waste may be a relatively small portion of the plant matter but in most cases it can yield up to 80%+ more energy than is required to grow and convert it. Additionally many cellulosic processes can refine the cellulose and extract a range of valuable co-products (just as oil refineries do with petrol) which would make a case for potential profitability sans-government credits.

ANT:
People hate on corn based ethanol, but fail to realize it is just the beginning. You need to get gas stations offering it and enough cars to be able to run it. Once there is enough outlets and supplies for ethanol you will see a switch towards more productive supplies.

Everyone talks about hydrogen and nat gas, but don't realize most cars have a 15 year life. If everything was instantly switched over we would still depend on a liquid based fuel.

Corn based ethanol--> sugar can--> alge/sorgum/forest waste, etc.

Agreed. 1st generation (corn-based) ethanol is a transient biofuel which is just a stepping stone for true carbon neutral renewable biofuels. At the same time though it is on a different track to success and many beneficiaries of corn-based ethanol are not going to want next generation biofuels to succeed.

 
nelobynature:

That's why utilizing the entire contents of the plant matter ex: sugar cane juice (conventional ethanol production) + bagasse (cellulosic ethanol production), is the ideal method to consider if you're to have any significant impact on liquid fuel consumption. Wood waste may be a relatively small portion of the plant matter but in most cases it can yield up to 80%+ more energy than is required to grow and convert it. Additionally many cellulosic processes can refine the cellulose and extract a range of valuable co-products (just as oil refineries do with petrol) which would make a case for potential profitability sans-government credits.

The EROEI on these fuels is extremely low. The volumes necessary to replace our current liquid fuel uses are mind boggling. Even if every single square inch of Africa were covered with jatropha (one of the plants often mentioned for ethanol that's not grown on arable land), it would cover about one-third of our oil consumption, see source below:

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/cD/page_284.shtml (you can then click on page 285 to read about algae).

And since some of you also mentioned hydrogen:

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c20/page_130.shtml (pages 128, 129, and 131 also mention hydrogen).

I cite this book because it's objective (the author is just a physics professor at Cambridge) and also because it's available for free on the internet and thus easy to cite. I have other books/reports that corroborate the figures. Anyone who has done more research into energy than just reading the news (i.e. read a life cycle analysis or book on ethanol, as opposed to an article in the NYT, should realize this stuff). If you guys read one book on energy, read the one I just cited...it's one of the best (and I've read quite a few).

 
ANT:
People hate on corn based ethanol, but fail to realize it is just the beginning. You need to get gas stations offering it and enough cars to be able to run it. Once there is enough outlets and supplies for ethanol you will see a switch towards more productive supplies.

Everyone talks about hydrogen and nat gas, but don't realize most cars have a 15 year life. If everything was instantly switched over we would still depend on a liquid based fuel.

Corn based ethanol--> sugar can--> alge/sorgum/forest waste, etc.

The reason intelligent people hate on corn ethanol is because the EROEI is at best slightly positive and there is nothing that suggests that this is an economies of scale or R&D problem (and as such your argument that "this is just the beginning" is wrong).

Almost no professionals in the energy space would say hydrogen is in any way viable. Hydrogen is not a source of energy, merely a storage mechanism. There are a ton of problems with hydrogen, ranging from cost, to storage issues, to energy loss on conversion, to name a few of the biggest. Any one of these by itself is a deal breaker, and we don't have any clue how to resolve them, in fact, most believe that, due to the laws of physics, it is impossible to.

The 15 year life cycle for the products that use oil (cars, trucks, planes, etc.) and the tremendous difficulty in transitioning away from it despite increasing scarcity is precisely why we will see oil prices in excess of $200/barrel by 2020. Prices have to get astronomically high to begin to force substitution/conservation.

 
alexpasch:
The reason intelligent people hate on corn ethanol is because the EROEI is at best slightly positive and there is nothing that suggests that this is an economies of scale or R&D problem (and as such your argument that "this is just the beginning" is wrong).
In addition, corn ethanol will massively increase the food price around the world, push tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of people into poverty/starvation, all in the name of a cleaner environment? what a novel idea !
 

You might want to try and be less judgmental with your statements. plenty of "intelligent" people support bio fuels. Just because someone disagrees with your statement doesn't make it worthless. Try and have an adult discussion.

Corn based ethanol is the start. Gas stations are individually owned in the US. You need to get both a supply and demand set up before owners will remove a revenue generating pump. We have a nation of mechanics trained on the internal combustion engine. We have tankers and fuel reserves designed for a liquid fuel. We have a fleet of cars that require a liquid fuel. All cars can easily run ethanol with small adjustments. Corn base ethanol is a start. Once the demand is there you will see adancements in other areas. Business will strive to produce more of it, cheaper an with more stores energy.

Lest people forget that gasoline went through many changes.

Energy in this country needs to be a mix, not a competition. In 100 years from now i hope we are still burning coal and oil, but as a small part of the overall energy mix.

 
ANT:
You might want to try and be less judgmental with your statements. plenty of "intelligent" people support bio fuels. Just because someone disagrees with your statement doesn't make it worthless. Try and have an adult discussion.

Corn based ethanol is the start. Gas stations are individually owned in the US. You need to get both a supply and demand set up before owners will remove a revenue generating pump. We have a nation of mechanics trained on the internal combustion engine. We have tankers and fuel reserves designed for a liquid fuel. We have a fleet of cars that require a liquid fuel. All cars can easily run ethanol with small adjustments. Corn base ethanol is a start. Once the demand is there you will see adancements in other areas. Business will strive to produce more of it, cheaper an with more stores energy.

Lest people forget that gasoline went through many changes.

Energy in this country needs to be a mix, not a competition. In 100 years from now i hope we are still burning coal and oil, but as a small part of the overall energy mix.

Very few legitimate energy experts see biofuels as a viable solution for our energy needs. The general consensus is that they have niche applications as fuel additives in certain instances. Anyone who seriously thinks that biofuels will replace a substantial portion of our current liquid fuels consumption is not intelligent (at least when it comes to energy policy), sorry.

Here's a recent article by someone who worked on cellulosic ethanol stating it's limitations:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7214

Here's an article on EROEI of corn ethanol (there are numerous online, most come in at slightly negative or slightly positive - that is horrendous compared to oil, which today sits at about 18:1)

http://netenergy.theoildrum.com/node/6761

I've also read a couple of life cycle analysis into corn ethanol (about 20 pages each - I'm having trouble finding them, read them like 3 years ago), but they also agree that net energy gain is minimal at best.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but if you post stupid things, I will call you out on them, because I know there is no unbiased report you can cite to back up your claims, as they are factually incorrect.

It's actually incredibly frustrating. On CNBC a few weeks ago they brought some corn ethanol lobbyist to debate an energy expert on the topic. It was incredible, EVERY fact the lobbyist mentioned was distorted. He stated that EROEI for corn ethanol was something like 8. No unbiased study or research I've ever read has ever come up with that number (for corn ethanol, sugar cane ethanol is about that, as a previous poster mentioned). What he was probably doing was only counting processing inputs, not farming, transport, etc (or something like that). People will blatantly lie when their livelihood depends on it...

 
alexpasch:
ANT:
You might want to try and be less judgmental with your statements. plenty of "intelligent" people support bio fuels. Just because someone disagrees with your statement doesn't make it worthless. Try and have an adult discussion.

Corn based ethanol is the start. Gas stations are individually owned in the US. You need to get both a supply and demand set up before owners will remove a revenue generating pump. We have a nation of mechanics trained on the internal combustion engine. We have tankers and fuel reserves designed for a liquid fuel. We have a fleet of cars that require a liquid fuel. All cars can easily run ethanol with small adjustments. Corn base ethanol is a start. Once the demand is there you will see adancements in other areas. Business will strive to produce more of it, cheaper an with more stores energy.

Lest people forget that gasoline went through many changes.

Energy in this country needs to be a mix, not a competition. In 100 years from now i hope we are still burning coal and oil, but as a small part of the overall energy mix.

Very few legitimate energy experts see biofuels as a viable solution for our energy needs. The general consensus is that they have niche applications as fuel additives in certain instances. Anyone who seriously thinks that biofuels will replace a substantial portion of our current liquid fuels consumption is not intelligent (at least when it comes to energy policy), sorry.

Here's a recent article by someone who worked on cellulosic ethanol stating it's limitations:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7214

Here's an article on EROEI of corn ethanol (there are numerous online, most come in at slightly negative or slightly positive - that is horrendous compared to oil, which today sits at about 18:1)

http://netenergy.theoildrum.com/node/6761

I've also read a couple of life cycle analysis into corn ethanol (about 20 pages each - I'm having trouble finding them, read them like 3 years ago), but they also agree that net energy gain is minimal at best.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but if you post stupid things, I will call you out on them, because I know there is no unbiased report you can cite to back up your claims, as they are factually incorrect.

It's actually incredibly frustrating. On CNBC a few weeks ago they brought some corn ethanol lobbyist to debate an energy expert on the topic. It was incredible, EVERY fact the lobbyist mentioned was distorted. He stated that EROEI for corn ethanol was something like 8. No unbiased study or research I've ever read has ever come up with that number (for corn ethanol, sugar cane ethanol is about that, as a previous poster mentioned). What he was probably doing was only counting processing inputs, not farming, transport, etc (or something like that). People will blatantly lie when their livelihood depends on it...

Good post, but you and I disagree. I think that producing 50 percent of America's electricity from biomass is doable by the year 2032. Biogas, ethanol and gasoline produced from algae will invariably become much, much cheaper than oil. Right now, northern European cities are switching to biogas because the variable costs of heating homes and generating electricity from biogas are less than that of heating oil.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment. -Styles P
 

So the USA should leave afghanistan and Iraq and all the bases we have because the world doesn't want us, but we should not use our own corn for fuel because of the rest of the world?

Maybe if people utilized birth control there wouldn't be an issue. Naaaa, it is always the USA's fault.

 
ANT:
So the USA should leave afghanistan and Iraq and all the bases we have because the world doesn't want us, but we should not use our own corn for fuel because of the rest of the world?

Maybe if people utilized birth control there wouldn't be an issue. Naaaa, it is always the USA's fault.

Seriously? You think the only people that will be damaged by the higher prices are starving third world who deserve it because they didn't use birth control
 

Motorsports seem to have been on the bio-fuels band wagon for quite some time (albeit, with pressure from government and environmental groups). In fact, motorsports is used as the testing ground for most of these alternative fuels. It's quite interesting to see how the most competitive factory backed teams at Porsche and Ferrari have been running on E85 blends and have been dominating the sport. In fact their was first this year when the Dyson prototype team took the first overall win with a 100% bio-butanol configuration. Quite impressive to see endurance racing turn to bio-fuels and not see a performance decrease to petrol.

That's not without mentioning that bio-fuels make a negative energy balance; their efficiency on the track (road) is nothing to scoff at, though. Perhaps when production reaches new heights in technology will we see unanimous support for bio-fuels. Until then, I would still say it's in the R&D stages and not ready for worldwide commercial use.

In 1976, James Hunt broke the sound barrier through Eau Rouge only to retire before the event finished... following the race he had sex with three Belgian nurses at the clubhouse near La Source.
 
James Hunt:
Motorsports seem to have been on the bio-fuels band wagon for quite some time (albeit, with pressure from government and environmental groups). In fact, motorsports is used as the testing ground for most of these alternative fuels. It's quite interesting to see how the most competitive factory backed teams at Porsche and Ferrari have been running on E85 blends and have been dominating the sport. In fact their was first this year when the Dyson prototype team took the first overall win with a 100% bio-butanol configuration. Quite impressive to see endurance racing turn to bio-fuels and not see a performance decrease to petrol.

That's not without mentioning that bio-fuels make a negative energy balance; their efficiency on the track (road) is nothing to scoff at, though. Perhaps when production reaches new heights in technology will we see unanimous support for bio-fuels. Until then, I would still say it's in the R&D stages and not ready for worldwide commercial use.

"Ethanol, because of it's high octane rating, is used neat in extremely high compression race car engines when immediate power is more important than fuel efficiency" - Oil 101, Morgan Downey, pg. 192 (Morgan Downey is the Director of Commodities Strategies at Standard Chartered; nice guy, I've met him a couple times). Oil 101 is the best overall primer on oil & gas I have ever read, like nothing else even comes close, everyone going into energy investing should read it.

 

Making ethanol in the USA makes perfect sense... especially when you consider that ~78% of Americans still believe that God conjured our monkey asses out of thin air. (Sarcasm intended)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creatio…

Call me a misanthrope, but policy decisions like corn based ethanol in the USA aren't based on science or rational numbers crunching... but they've been polluted by campaign contributions, Midwestern politics and deceptive marketing campaigns.

Then again, when a majority of my countrymen would rather believe in hocus pocus than science because it's more comfortable than facing basic math and science... then yeah... I see why ethanol (and government subsidies for ethanol) is on the table.

Brazil, on the other hand, actually makes a lot of sense considering the sustainability. Glad to see a few countries learned their lesson during the last OPEC embargo.

__________________________ Attempting to be the chess player, not the chess piece @ Steadfast Finances
 

Yeah, you are right, believe in science is 100% rational because we all know that science has proven, without any doubt, every single thing in the world.

People who mock those that have religious beliefs tend to be the most annoying fuckers alive. Just because you know 5 scientific facts doesn't mean someone who believe in creation is a moron.

Also, no where did anyone bring up religion in this post. Also, just because a person is religious does not mean they are uneducated.

Hey Matt, you know who I think is a dumb fuck? A person who posts a link to a gallup poll talking about religion when everyone else is talking about the merits of ethanol. Dumb shit.

 

Per the religious discussion:

There are certain things science will never prove, but strict creationist beliefs have been disproven. Still, no one can say definitively whether there is a supreme being or not. I think it's incredibly arrogant for a human being to think they have the answers to these questions. These things are ineffable and outside the realm of human consciousness.

Although people who mock others with religious beliefs can be quite annoying; the most annoying people alive are religious fundamentalists. I submit flying airplanes into buildings because you think god is going to provide you 72 v-cards as exhibit A. I always find it funny how everyone who doesn't believe in someone's religion is "annoying" to them. Last I checked atheists were not attacking or abusing those that disagree with them (religion's track record on that is quite well established). Religion is dangerous because it cheapens human life and allows the elites to mind control the masses.

Agnosticism/atheism rates are very strongly correlated with intelligence. This does not mean that a religious person is uneducated, but an atheist will likely be more intelligent than a religious person.

I like the trend of religion's power slowly eroding. People can (hopefully) be spiritual without the whole corrupt power structure of orthodox religion. I think people should live their lives to the fullest, no point worrying too much about this, we'll never know the answer. If you live a good life, god will take care of you. If he doesn't exist, well, at least you lived a good life, didn't you? (I really need to add "write a philosophy book" to my life goals, lol).

Lastly, I agree, the post really had no place in the discussion, but still felt compelled to chime in.

 
alexpasch:
"Ethanol, because of it's high octane rating, is used neat in extremely high compression race car engines when immediate power is more important than fuel efficiency" - Oil 101, Morgan Downey, pg. 192 (Morgan Downey is the Director of Commodities Strategies at Standard Chartered; nice guy, I've met him a couple times). Oil 101 is the best overall primer on oil & gas I have ever read, like nothing else even comes close, everyone going into energy investing should read it.

Immediate power has more application in a sprint-type race like Formula One where there are one or two pit-stops and the race duration is less than two hours (also, take into account that Formula One engines are purpose-built and not homolgated, whereas in endurance racing they are).

Fuel efficiency is a hugely important factor in endurance racing (where GT engines must be homologated to the their road going counterparts); one of the most important factors, actually (which is why the government and automotive companies put some much effort into endurance racing programs and applying that technology into road cars). This years 24 Hours Nürburgring was a classic example of how endurance racing pioneers new fuel saving technologies which could later be applied to road cars; Porsche built a flywheel hybrid system for an independent class which could do more laps than the similar competition before making a pit-stop.

No doubt that the ethanol based fuels are not ready for the road quite yet, but that is not to discount the fact that more R&D from endurance racing (and you would be surprised to see how many systems in road cars came from racing technology) and the such can be done to find a viable option for ethanol's commercial use. I'd be interested to see more engine mapping configurations with alternative fuels because, to be honest, I am not entirely convinced that a solution for ethanol's commercial use is coming very soon... there are years and years of more research that need to be done before we even consider commercializing heavy ethanol content fuels, not to mention the need for new technologies to produce the fuel efficiently without a negative energy balance.

In 1976, James Hunt broke the sound barrier through Eau Rouge only to retire before the event finished... following the race he had sex with three Belgian nurses at the clubhouse near La Source.
 

Yes, all prices will increase, but the developing nations will be the ones most effected. I can afford a $10 increase in the price of my food bill, they cannot.

Call me cruel, but people in developing countries should play zero into our decision for energy independence or security. We are not the worlds mom and dad.

 
ANT:
Call me cruel, but people in developing countries should play zero into our decision for energy independence or security. We are not the worlds mom and dad.

Realpolitik has always been the best answer to most geopolitical situations, in my opinion.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
 
ANT:
Yes, all prices will increase, but the developing nations will be the ones most effected. I can afford a $10 increase in the price of my food bill, they cannot.

Call me cruel, but people in developing countries should play zero into our decision for energy independence or security. We are not the worlds mom and dad.

Kind of nice you want a billion people to starve just so so you can have a cheaper fuel your car. Also if you had read the other posts you would have realised how inefficent it is to make ethanonk from corn. Government should just invest in nuclear and find a way to make fusion feasible than just use the energy from there to either make hydrogen cars feasible or make electric cass feasible
 
ANT:
Yes, all prices will increase, but the developing nations will be the ones most effected. I can afford a $10 increase in the price of my food bill, they cannot.

Call me cruel, but people in developing countries should play zero into our decision for energy independence or security. We are not the worlds mom and dad.

 

The energy output from the processng of the raw materials used to produce ethanol fuel is not at a level that would substantiate it as a viable option. According to an NPR segment a study suggests that the input/ouput ratio is something like 1 unit of enegy input equates to 1.4 units of energy output. Whereas gasoline production using fossil fuels yeilds a ratio of 1/5. Until the technology is available to produce a greater yield than I don't see it being an option. The other consideration will be how much land will be required to produce the necessary yield of corn to meet our energy consumption needs. I don't know the answer to this ... Perhaps someone has an answer? And I also don't see electric/battery powered vehicles as an option either. They only run for about 100-120 miles before they need to be recharged. Imagine how many of those cars would stop running in rush hour traffic on a daily basis ...

 

Ratione culpa expedita nobis ratione excepturi. Molestiae nulla autem molestiae voluptate earum qui. Qui et quia eos labore et dolores fugiat.

Debitis delectus placeat sit sed. Accusantium aut aut voluptas ipsa sed deleniti. Quae quis in minus consequuntur. Quo dolores est ea autem mollitia qui. Deserunt nemo sed in quaerat. Quam voluptatum alias voluptatibus quidem aspernatur voluptate excepturi quos.

 

Sed molestiae unde modi nulla est. Tempore omnis itaque fuga ea tempora aspernatur voluptatem. Qui in repellat et natus recusandae maiores. Blanditiis sapiente voluptatem consequatur nostrum vel non. Voluptate et voluptatum fuga aut praesentium molestiae eum.

Assumenda voluptas dolorum nesciunt nam. Aliquid voluptatibus non voluptates nostrum praesentium sed quam. Architecto et sit voluptatem cupiditate. Qui beatae harum et dolorem fugiat molestiae voluptatem. Quidem minima laboriosam ut dolorem.

Corporis saepe beatae explicabo distinctio architecto rerum. Aperiam cum corporis tenetur dolorem velit et. Accusamus ut non voluptates perferendis. Molestiae ullam beatae est velit. Molestias consequatur pariatur eveniet quia dolorem est.

More is good, all is better

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
7
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”