Letters to the Editor: Fuel Grade Ethanol: Let's Clear the Air
I would like to thank Messrs. Culver, Scott and Hawn (Letters to the Editor, Nov. 10) for the opportunity to correct several of their common misunderstandings about fuel grade ethanol.</br></br>Dave Culver, in his concern over the projected production cost of ethanol, makes no mention of the true costs of imported oil. When externalities such as environmental and health costs, the loss of domestic jobs and basic industries, the trade deficit, commitments of military resources to ensure the free flow of oil from the Middle East and threats to our energy and national security are included, the true cost of imports even now exceeds $100/bbl, according to the General Accounting Office.</br></br>Mr. Culver is off by a factor of almost 10 in his claim that "Vehicles that consume a 10% mixture of `gasohol' typically see a 20% loss in fuel mileage." Between 2% and 4% is correct. He is a bit closer in his description of E-85 vehicles. At this time, they experience about a 20% reduction in range compared to gasoline. That will improve with higher compression ratio engines allowed by ethanol's 113 octane. He is just flat wrong about fires and fuel system incompatibility with ethanol.</br></br>John W. Scott is correct in warning that the production of ethanol and other biofuels from feed grains and oilseeds, from agriculture and forestry residues, fast growing trees and grasses and well as from urban biomass heading for the dump, must ensure environmental integrity from the dirt to the tailpipe. The sloshing down the river of 15 gallons of top soil for every gallon of ethanol simply does not occur with modern, environmentally sound farming practices including crop rotation, conservation tillage, planting and harvesting, filter strips and the scientific use of agricultural chemicals. As the nation commercializes the conversion of ethanol and other biofuels from cellulosic biomass, the planting of grasses and trees on erodible land will bring increasing levels of top soil to farm lands, a process already well under way.</br></br>Richard G. Hawn needs to visit Brazil to verify his claims of poor-running cars and double-the-size gas tanks. Essentially all cars in Brazil run on ethanol, either in blends of 22% ethanol/78% gasoline or 99% ethanol (a little touch of denaturant to keep the imbibers away). They run well and the public is pleased. The fuel tanks are about 20% larger than they would be if straight gasoline were used. He is right about the Btu content of ethanol being lower than gasoline -- 76,000 Btu compared with about 119,000 for gasoline. But he neglected to mention that the increased thermal efficiency of ethanol when combusted and its much higher octane permits engine designs that will almost remove the Btu advantage of gasoline. He also failed to mention that air quality in San Paulo Brazil, with a population of 14 million, is better than in Los Angeles, New York City or Houston Texas. There are, of course, "externalities" in this observation -- and I will show mine when the oil companies show theirs.