Introduction to Ethanol and Octane Rating
The term 'octane' in the context of fuels is often misunderstood. Octane is a class of hydrocarbons found in gasoline, and the octane rating is a measure of a fuel's ability to resist pre-ignition during combustion. Ethanol, despite not containing high quantities of octane, has a higher octane rating compared to most gasoline blends. This makes it particularly useful in engines designed to handle high compression ratios. In older days, some gas stations even labeled their ethanol-rich blends as 'ethyl' gas due to its high octane rating, often around 120.
From an engineering perspective, the key benefit of ethanol is its ability to enhance engine performance, especially in high-compression engines. However, when mixing ethanol into gasoline, its octane-boosting effect is not as straightforward as one might think. A 10% concentration of ethanol in 85 octane gasoline, for instance, can raise the octane rating by about 2 points.
Is Ethanol an Octane Booster?
Yes, ethanol acts as an octane booster. The addition of 10% ethanol to 85 octane gasoline can indeed raise the octane rating, lowering the possibility of engine knocking, a phenomenon that occurs when fuel ignites prematurely in the combustion chamber. However, it's important to note that this octane-boosting effect can be replicated through other refining methods.
The cost of ethanol as an octane booster is not negligible. It has a significant impact on the overall economics of fuel production and distribution. Ethanol is produced from corn, a crop that would otherwise be used for food production. This diversion of agricultural land into ethanol production not only affects food prices but also exacerbates environmental concerns related to land use and energy consumption.
The Business of Ethanol: A Political and Economic Perspective
Behind the scenes, the adoption of ethanol as a fuel additive is deeply rooted in politics and economics. Companies like Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill, along with other mega-agricultural firms, profit immensely from the ethanol industry. Between 2017 and 2018, Archer Daniels Midland contributed approximately $330,828 to political campaigns and spent $4,000,000 on lobbying. Cargill also spent $428,401 on political contributions and $2,490,000 on lobbying. These figures are expected to balloon in the 2020 election cycle.
The mandatory use of ethanol in gasoline, driven by political mandates, alters market dynamics. It forces refiners to build and operate facilities for ethanol production, ensuring a steady market for these companies. This is not driven by market demand or real need but by government mandates. The market for ethanol is maintained through the influence of these agricultural lobbies on policymakers rather than market forces.
Is Ethanol Worth the Cost?
When considering whether ethanol is a cost-effective solution, it becomes clear that the economic and environmental costs significantly outweigh the benefits. Producing ethanol from corn is highly expensive and energy-intensive. Moreover, it diverts agricultural land from food production, leading to higher food prices and reduced feed availability for livestock. These factors contribute to price hikes at the grocery store and at the fuel pump.
A report from EERE indicates that producing ethanol costs nearly twice as much as producing gasoline. In 2019, the average cost of producing ethanol was approximately $1.74 per gallon, compared to an average of $0.95 for gasoline. Without subsidies, political contributions, and government mandates, no profit-seeking business would find it economically viable to produce ethanol for use in gasoline.
The reliance on ethanol in the United States' energy policy is often misaligned with scientific and practical benefits. Recent mandatory ethanol use requirements, which push refiners to use more ethanol than their facilities can handle, reflect more of a political agenda than a market-driven demand. This practice is reminiscent of the failed Soviet economy, where market distortions threatened economic stability.
Given the high costs and environmental impact, ethanol should not be considered a fuel additive but a mechanism for transferring money from the general public to the agricultural industry and politicians. While ethanol can be a cost-effective solution in some contexts, such as Brazil where it is refined from agricultural waste, producing crops and destroying them to make low-grade fuel is economically and environmentally unsound unless it serves a political agenda.
Conclusion
The debate over ethanol as an octane booster and a cost-effective fuel additive reveals a complex interplay of politics, economics, and environmental issues. While it can enhance performance in certain engines, its large-scale use imposes significant costs on society, food prices, and the environment. The ethical and economic questions surrounding ethanol production highlight the need for a reevaluation of government policies that favor agricultural lobbies over broader public interests.