We wrote earlier about the costly inefficiencies, and the deceptive economic and environmental contradictions, inherent in the use of agriculturally-based ethanol as either a gasoline additive, for fuel purposes, or a liquid fuel replacement. It is a simple hydrocarbon, and contains relatively low energy content.
Ethanol is a beneficial additive for gasoline, however, aside from it's popularly misperceived value as a liquid fuel.
It can enhance the process of internal combustion, serving to reduce engine "knock", and thus act as a replacement for lead and the even more toxic lead replacements the fuel industry has been forced into adopting.
Moreover, ethanol, added to gasoline, has been reported to help in the reduction of "smog", commonly attributed to pollution from automotive exhaust.
As we've documented, ethanol can be efficiently synthesized from coal, and that fact, as well as it's value as a gasoline additive, is confirmed by the enclosed report.
Some excerpts, with comments inserted:
"The effect of synthetic ethanol on octane response and fuel performance of fuel mixtures was compared to that of fermented ethanol of 99.9% purity sourced from California. It was concluded that the synthetic ethanol produced from coal compared very favorably to bio-ethanol, and it is therefore a feasible alternative to the fermented alcohol in use elsewhere in the world."
And, interestingly:
"Coal-derived synthetic ethanol is currently used in South Africa as a 12% blend with gasoline."
We'll note that the "coal-derived" ethanol is being blended, in South Africa, with Sasol's "coal-derived" gasoline, their intensive production and use of which we have thoroughly documented.
And, perhaps most interestingly, we learn:
"Synthetic ethanol from coal was half the cost of ethanol from cane."
By "cane", they mean sugarcane, which can be grown in Africa, and which would be readily available throughout the year, unlike highly-touted seasonal US sources of ethanol, such as corn. We would be forced to an ancillary conclusion that "synthetic ethanol from coal would be less than half the cost of ethanol from corn".
Especially so when it is realized that, in most instances, electricity generated from coal is required to help process and ferment, and then to distill ethanol from, agricultural produce.
Further, and importantly:
"The U.S. Senate passed an energy bill that contains a provision (RFS) that would mandate the use of bio-ethanol in gasoline to 5 billion gallons by the year 2012. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that this provision will cost taxpayers $5 billion over the next ten years."
So, by blind, unknowledgeable, insistence on "bio"-ethanol, an additional $5 billion will be added to our already-exorbitant bill for liquid fuels.
It has been thoroughly documented: We can manufacture the gasoline we need from our own, domestic coal, and thus stop sending our money overseas to unfriendly regimes. And, to help reduce air pollution and improve engine performance, we can add ethanol to that coal-derived gasoline; ethanol that can itself be made from coal at half the cost of making it from agricultural feed stock.
