Car Advice

E85 Fuel & Energy Vulnerability

By John Cadogan |

Holden’s imminent release of the so-called ‘flex-fuel’ VE Series 2 Commodore, which can run on 100 per cent petrol or petrol-ethanol belends up to E85, has – near enough – coincided with Caltex’s roll out of its tongue-twisting take on E85. Called Bio E-Flex, the high-proportion ethanol fuel will be available in 32 city servos initially, and is set to expand to more than 100 stations within a year or so.

At the very least this confluence of events has managed to answer the perennial ‘chicken/egg’ question – they both occurred contemporaneously. A real-life, literal, example of autogenesis…

The spin-doctoring has started, too. They’re already calling it ‘bio-ethanol’ – as if there’s another non-bio kind of ethanol on offer. (Over-used terms of the early 21st Century: ‘bio’, ‘eco’, ‘green’, ‘enviro’… the list goes on.) Ethanol’s purported green credentials are being widely touted – and, frankly, the jury’s still out on that. And, as you’ll see below, the whole green fuel debate is really a sideshow – albeit a high-profile one.

Most of the ethanol in Australia is produced from wheat. Some comes from sugar as well. Proponents of the stuff – usually the companies that manufacture it – say it’s very green, being based on a renewable (or at least re-grown) resource as opposed to a fossil fuel. Critics, on the other hand, say the ‘net energy balance’ of ethanol – the energy you get out of it minus the energy you have to put in to produce it (from growing the crop to milling and distilling it) is tantamount to a waste of time.

The truth, or otherwise, of these positions, is probably geography-dependant. And it’s certainly feedstock-dependent. In Brazil, where ethanol production is steeped in sugar cane, the stuff is probably a better deal. But in the absence of a PhD in bio-science, however, how is the ordinary person to know if the new E85-capable Commodore is really a good idea, or just an example of the once-mighty GM trying to reclaim some moral high ground after losing its way meteorically in the lead-up to the recent global financial collapse – merely by latching on to a convenient-to-implement option?

It could be either – GM is committed, either way – to moving half of its total production to flex-fuel capability in the near term.

The fact is, ethanol probably won’t be a truly ethical, viable and green option until a feedstock-flexible process utilizing mainly waste is productionised and widely implemented. That’s where bespoke bugs turn waste products (agri-waste, industro-waste and domestic garbage) into ethanol after it’s rendered down to gas in a furnace and the waste heat is employed elsewhere. That’s probably a decade off, or more.

This whole ‘green/not green’ debate is beside the point anyway. There’s a great reason to get behind the rise of bio-fuels, and it boils down, simply, to this: we can make the stuff here. Unlike crude oil.

Most people don’t get this, but our way of life in Australia is intrinsically joined at the hip to liquid fuels – we burn 30 billion litres of the stuff annually. That’s about 75 million litres a day, or 1000 litres every second – and most of it, overwhelmingly, is imported.

In general, oil-rich nations are geopolitically unstable. Some aren’t, but most are. The biggest arm of the US military – the US Central Command – is located in the Middle East for a reason. And one guess what its mission is – to ensure America’s supply of oil is uninterrupted, despite political hiccups like the one in Iraq spanning two bad Bush presidencies.

Often, the world’s oil is located smack-bang in the middle of despotic regimes that hate the west fundamentally (but don’t mind receiving its money in exchange for their oil).

It’s not altogether a pleasant realization when you join the dots on this and figure that our way of life is basically wedded to the ongoing imperative to continue to trade with crackpot countries that really don’t like the US – or its limpet-like partners in the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’.

There are elephants in the room, too – elephants called China and India, which are only just developing a prodigious thirst for ‘black gold’ at a time when they’re effectively coming to a party late, only to find the keg half empty. The consensus view on ‘peak oil’ is that it’s happening around about now. Inconveniently, as Al Gore would say, there is no more significant crude oil reserve left on earth to find. The whole planet has been comprehensively searched and scrutinized for oil, both on the ground and from space via remote sensing.

Evidence of this? Investment gurus Goldman Sachs has noted there’s no investment globally in additional oil refining capacity, nor oil tanker capacity – probably because we’re already ripping it out of the ground as fast as it can be produced.

Economics 101: demand is rising, and supply is apparently fixed – so have a guess which way prices are headed in the medium term.

How invested is our way of life in oil? Well, the short answer is: very. There is probably nothing in your home or office that does not owe its existence in that place to petrochemicals. Every kilojoule of food on your table at dinnertime owes its existence on the plate, on average, to the 10 kilojoules of hydrocarbon energy that got it there.

The groceries you buy are fertilized with hydrocarbons, harvested by hydrocarbons, transported to Woolies by hydrocarbons, wrapped in plastic made from hydrocarbons, transported home by hydrocarbons and – you guessed it – often cooked by hydrocarbons. We don’t really rely on food any more; we eat ‘petrofood’. We wear ‘petro-clothes’.

Economists and organisations like the CSIRO use the term ‘energy security’ to describe our national exposure to, and reliance on, foreign oil, but I prefer the term ‘energy vulnerability’. Because if that tap gets turned off, our way of life stops. It’s that simple. Cue Stephen King and Quentin Tarrantino…

Forget the environment – or at least, put it in its place – that’s a less certain argument with E85. The simple fact is that Australia has to get far more self-sufficient on the fuel front, just to protect society and the economy as we move into the future with oil being increasingly expensive, and its supply less certain.

E85 is part of that solution – but so is much more focus on our existing hydrocarbon reserves, like our wealth of gas resources. Compressed natural gas (CNG) is a viable heavy transport fuel right now, and LPG is already a goer on cars and light commercials. Both options are perversely proportionately unpopular ones. They’re currently statistically insignificant – and they need to be far more popular future fuels. This is simply the case because Australia is awash in both natural gas and LPG.

The bottom line is that the move to E85 for Australia’s most popular car is a very positive one – but selling it to the population on the basis of its intrinsic ‘green-ness’ is tantamount to selling our society a pup. It’s at least beside the point, and at worst indefensible. Mainstream Australia needs to stop sticking its head in the sand and wrap its consciousness around our energy vulnerability today – and then we need a politician right at the top of the heap with sufficient long-term vision to nudge the nation into a more energy-secure future. And, you know, finding a politician willing to see further than the end of the next electoral term is going to be harder than putting our national addiction to oil into long-term rehab. I mean, today – right now – there’s not a single federal MP who can see past the speculation about which team of unpopular, short-sighted losers enjoys the biggest parliamentary minority.


 
  • Devil666

    Insightful. You are right about the CNG, resource wise Australia is pretty well off with gas, we just need manufacturers to get behind the liquid gas injection technology. While they are in cahoots with oil companies it is going to be a hard sell sadly. I suppose that reflects some of the importance of HSV in developing the system, without the pressure of GM weighing down on them, they have the ability to provide a system that is covered by a factory warranty and can provide a duel fuel vehicle with minimal performance penalty. Nothing is more reassuring to the typical consumer than stock standard/factory specification.

    • Shak

      GM dont own HSV. Tom Walkinshaw owns a 51% majority Stake, while GM Holden owns the other 49%.

      • Devil666

        Exactly the point Shak. If GM did have a majority stake, LPG would remain the ‘carby’ style that factories still fit today, to keep it inefficient and uncompetitive. HSV is going out on a limb here, and hopefully other gutsy manufacturers will follow.

    • Devil’s Advocate

      So what weapons did LPG and Petrol choose and how many paces for their duel?! ;-) TIC

      Seriously though, you hit the nail on the head. The oil companies are so rich/powerful that anytime something alternative looks like being a winner, they ‘do what they need to do’ to acquire the rights and then file it away for when they can no longer make their huge profits with oil alone!

      • Shak

        Thats what always baffles me. If they know that Oil is running out, why dont they buy out all the alternatives so that we have a viable energy secure future. They are the only ones with the R&D cash to build up renewables; unless they know about some mysterious oil reserves in some other third world country?

  • rentakeyboard

    This article ovelooks the fact the Holden and Caltex and Coskta an the Vic government are working on way to manufacturing Ethanol from recycled household garbage.
    Less greenhouse gases less landfill sounds like a win win to me.

    Good on Holden and Caltex for taking the high road to do something to make this “green” fuel, that is widely available across europe to the Oz market.

    Agree with the LPG comments above.

    Im sure with this sites love of Toyota this would
    be written differently if Toyota was the one releasing flex-fuel cars

    • 70′s Datsun

      Yeah you swallowed all the crap Holden had in the press release by the looks.

    • John Cadogan

      You know, you’re right … if by ‘overlooked’ you meant this bit of the story: “The fact is, ethanol probably won’t be a truly ethical, viable and green option until a feedstock-flexible process utilizing mainly waste is productionised and widely implemented. That’s where bespoke bugs turn waste products (agri-waste, industro-waste and domestic garbage) into ethanol after it’s rendered down to gas in a furnace and the waste heat is employed elsewhere. That’s probably a decade off, or more.” Alternatively, maybe you should read more slowly. Your comprehension might improve. Coskata is the only organisation looking at doing it. The others are just looking at providing either money or demand. And it’s harldy imminent in any large-scale way. Maybe you just swallowed the press release.

  • Nick K

    John,

    Well done mate, I could not agree more. How insane is it that we subsidize a hybrid Camry when we should be funding LPG, CNG and Ethanol. If the $ are made available local manufacturers could engineer dedicated LPG vehicles with properly integrated Systems using a conformable tank under the car. If we can reduce our energy dependency it would mean instant wealth creation for Australia and should be one plank in supply side solutions to reducing carbon emissions, right now all I’m hearing from pollies are demand side solutions.

  • ABMPSV

    Gas would be the way to go not ethanol. In EUrope you can buy Chevrolet,Dacia, Daihatsu, Dodge, Fiat, Ford, Hyundai, Lada, Mercedes,Mitsubishi, Opel, Renault, Seat,Skoda, Subaru, VW. All these cars go on LPG or CNG or both. You can choose between 276 models. I can not see any factory fitted here only Falcon and Commodore.

    • F1MotoGP

      So we are the CLEVER COUNTRY or the STUPID COUNTRY. Sell our gas soooo cheap!! I was in Europe last December and I was shocked the Mercedes got cars running on CNG and LPG!!

  • Shak

    I agree John that LPG and CNG are the smartest alternatives here, but it seems the public dont want them. It is a smart move by Holden to introduce this fuel on a car that every Australian knows about. Even if it isnt economically viable in the short term, maybe if we have two or three generations of E85 Commodores and Holden’s in General, we can get into a more sustainable Ethanol future. Currently coskata is developing the use of their anaerobic bugs to use with waste material.
    Anyway, all good hope to Holden with their new foray into alternative fuels.

    • Fenno

      I also agree, but the public dont want them because there is no infrastructure in place to accomodate yet. To top it off it seems that we’re very keen to let the Indians and Chinese have first dibs on the reserves we have.
      Just ask Qld premier Anna Bligh.

      • Jack

        It seems amazingly stupid policy to hock the gas off on the cheap.

      • Shak

        What do you mean we dont have LPG and CNG infrastructure, while i agree CNG is far and hard to come by in most areas, i think that most would agree the LPG is as widely available as petrol in this country.

  • Two Bob

    The operative point in this article is that the desirability of ethanol, economically and environmentally, depends on the feedstock used to produce it. Grain is a far inferior feedstock than sugar cane.
    Has anybody asked how much ethanol will be produced from household waste and when. I think it may be just green spin. Second generation may be ten years away.
    So, this leaves us with grain ethanol or sugar cane ethanol carted long distance from North Queensland.
    We could of course import it from Brazil but the grain ethanol vested interests would easily spin that to one side.
    We must not subsidise the production of ethanol from grain.

  • Orson Cart

    When I was in Brasil in early 1990s, the vast majority
    of cars and light commercials ran on ethanol, now it
    is down to about 50%. It is not the answer.
    LPG is a better solution to squeeze a few more years
    out of the internal combusiton engine.

  • F1MotoGP

    New trend in the last 30 years bigger cars with bigger engines and the car weight is up so fuel economy goes up too. If I must choose I prefer gas not ethanol unless does not effect food prices.

  • gearboxdawg

    Australia has a strong sugar industry going prior to signing the free trade agreement with the US. The FTA almost killed the sugar industry and because US sugar cane market is the most protected in the world. Ethanol may be a environmentally friendly fuel rival but it is so water intensive that some food production maybe diverted to ethanol. Queensland has abundant water and will be able to keep producing sugar cane to turn them into ethanol.

    We may have to try and balance out food production over biofuel products. Subsidies and other government assistance would need to get this kicking off the ground if we are going to slow down being a net importer of fuel.

  • Jack

    Any move that creates liquid fuel independence is a good move. The mind numbingly frustrating truth is that we have around 300 years of CNG supply, and we are hocking it off for the use of others at prices much cheaper in relative terms to what they import back to use after value-adding.

    Surely it makes sense to run the national fleet on CNG, put into place policy that ensures CNG use, and fund infrastructure to enable CNG? Then we can use this gift to set Australia up into the 25th century.

    Or we could squander it now, for a generation’s lifestyle needs.

    • ABMPSV

      Spot on!! We do not need expensive oil when we got cheap gas here.

  • F1MotoGP

    Go gas. In British Touring Car Championship Team Aon has announced its Ford Focus STs will be powered by liquified petroleum gas (LPG) in 2010.

    • ABMPSV

      ..and Ford is 2nd overall for team and drivers 3rd and 5th.

  • Andrew M

    Wow, For once I see people talking positive things about LPG and CNG!!!!!

    About bloody time because I was just about to give up on flogging it on my own with the help of only a couple of others.

    One other thing I was thinking about with E85, is that I would hate to be the first one using it. If all the caltex servos stock up on it, and the only cars using it are VE2 commodores (if the owners choose to use it that is), then there would be an extremely low turnover of the fuel in the storage tanks at the servos.

    We all know what happens when fuel sit around, and mechanics highly recommend filling at servos that have a high turnover

    • Dave S

      What Holden have done here is great. regardless of how many VE 2 are actually running E85. What is important is Holden have got people talking about ‘alternative fuels’

      It seems ‘alternative fuel’ too often just means diesel. Holden/ HSV are getting people thinking Ethanol and LPG as alternative fuels. Both are great clean options and have their merits.

  • nickdl

    Great article, John.

    I have previously said on other threads (and been voted down for it) that I can’t throw my support behind ethanol when they are still producing it from food crops. I hardly think it is fair that there are so many people starving in the world, and yet food is instead being used to fuel our cars.

    As you have mentioned, Coskata is the only company currently producing ethanol from waste products and it won’t become mainstream for another decade. Other companies use food crops because it’s cheaper. All of this while the price of food in 3rd world countries is increasing rapidly.

    Overall, I strongly agree with above posts about CNG and LPG. They are the alternative fuels of the mid-term future. Not so long ago, LPG was about 38c a litre. Now, due to increased taxes, it’s up to about 60c. If the government really wants to get good support behind LPG, it needs to reduce taxes.

    Mercedes already have a CNG Sprinter van in Australia but unfortunately, it’s incredibly difficult to make an impact when infrastructure is so lacking. CNG is another fuel which needs heavy investment.

    Replacing LPG Falcons and Commodores as taxis with Hybrid Camrys is irresponsible IMO. Same goes for government fleets. I really hope the new LPG Falcons and Commodores do well, because it’s a fuel which we should all be looking towards and there will be very little compromise of the petrol models.

  • Stoney!

    John Cadogan wouldn’t be saying that CNG was a viable heavy transport fuel if he worked in the transport industry like I do, the massive amount of problems we have with CNG buses and their lack of power far out weigh any sort of small gain in fueling costs we may save.

    Stoney!

  • Grant

    Surely, we should be implementing the use of smaller much more fuel efficient cars if we are indeed at peck oil. Britain, ( I was there recently) has much smaller vehicles than here. Why is it that Australians need these huge 4wds the country is flat and mostly dry , you can go virtually anywhere in a VW Polo. On a recent drive ( sunday) to the hinterland of the Sunshine coast to visit friends virtually every car on the road was a 4wd. Its pathetic what is it with that Australian attitude. I read that the biggest selling car in Aust a Toyota Hilux , now that is really bizarre!

  • ABMPSV

    We should be a Clever Country!! Why we got only one car Ford Falcon which runs on LPG only. Look at Europe the choice is unbelievable. Ford should bring in the Focus. In Germany you can get the LPG or CNG version. I calculated the LPG version cheaper to run than CNG and got aroun 10% more power. Compared to petrol here you could run it 11% cheaper only $6.36 per 100km!!

  • Jonno Smith

    Post-election analysis-wise, the minority Labor govt under Julia Gillard will, in a nutshell, increase fuel prices as a result of the power-sharing agreement they have with the Greens [...implementing Carbon Tax]. I think our electricity bills will also increase soon! With the Mining Tax yet to be implemented, foreign investments will stop flowing in & the Aussie $ will eventually sink – & fuel prices will then go north! The Aussie’s love affair with cars will be over. Already, I’m seeing an increasing number of commuters taking up biking as an alternative. Something got to give & I don’t think E85, LPG, CNG, Diesels or Hybrids is the answer to personal transportation. Road congestion & expensive CDB parking is already creating urban planning problems for councillors. I’ve traveled to Japan & I see that the average Japanese relies solely on public transportation. In the suburbs, they use bicycles, scooters or kei [660cc] cars to get around. For a nation that is the no.1 in car exports, their domestic market is insignificant! No wonder, it costs a fortune to own a car there!

    • ABMPSV

      Our electricity won’t increase because is already up by 28%, gas 8%, council rates 12%. Nothing to do with politics.

      • ABMPSV

        …and I missed water up 22.4% and all this before election.

    • Shak

      In all honesty the mining tax brings back much more than it will take away. if investors stop investing it isnt because a sill y tax is being placed on them. They know for a fct that the profits they make from mining anything in our country far outweigh the costs and they dont want these profits taken away from them. They take them offshore and invest in their home country. there is a reason that the Japanese rely on Public transport, it is efficient, on time and widely available. And car cultures rarely interlap. In australia we always have and will love our cars in all shapes ans sizes.

  • there we go

    The main thing is that the fuel is alot cheaper,
    and there is nothing austrailans like more than being cheap….

  • moonbeam

    “The spin-doctoring has started, too. They’re already calling it ‘bio-ethanol’ – as if there’s another non-bio kind of ethanol on offer.”

    There sure is. Most ethanol in the world is derived from natural gas.

    “Critics, on the other hand, say the ‘net energy balance’ of ethanol – the energy you get out of it minus the energy you have to put in to produce it (from growing the crop to milling and distilling it) is tantamount to a waste of time.”

    The critics are wrong. Ethanol prdouces more energy than it requires to produce.

    “That’s where bespoke bugs turn waste products (agri-waste, industro-waste and domestic garbage) into ethanol after it’s rendered down to gas in a furnace and the waste heat is employed elsewhere.”

    You’re talking about two differrent processes there.

    In gasification, organic material is heated until it becomes gas and ash, and then the gases are condensed into liquid ethanol.

    In bio-production, the material is mashed, and then broken down by bacteria, yeast and enzymes into “wine”, which is then distilled.

    “Evidence of this? Investment gurus Goldman Sachs has noted there’s no investment globally in additional oil refining capacity, nor oil tanker capacity – probably because we’re already ripping it out of the ground as fast as it can be produced.”

    More likely its due to the fact that the oil industry is rationalised and there’s little competition, so no incentive to increase supply (compare with the electrcity situation in Australia).

    • http://www.caradvice.com.au/ John Cadogan

      Genius! I love it! You are categorically wrong, and yet you manage to sound authoritative.

      1. According to Dr Christoph Berg in ‘World Fuel Ethanol Analysis and Outlook’, 95 per cent of the world’s enthanol is derived from agricultural crops. Big ‘fail’ there…

      2. According to David Pimental in ‘Ethanol Fuels: Energy Balance, Economics and Environmental Impacts are Negative’ “The total energy input to produce a gallon of ethanol is 99,119BTU. However a gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000BTU. Thus there is a net energy loss.”

      3. Not talking about two different processes. The Coskata process being negotiated right now in Victoria involves rendering down to carbon monoxide and hydrogen in a furnace, and feeding the CO and H2 to bespoke anaerobic microbes in a bioreactor, which absorb the gasses and emit ethanol.

      4. Your take on gassification proves to me you never studied chemistry. You can’y heat up organic material to the point at which it decomposes to gas, and expect ethanol when it all cools down. Ridiculous!

      5. You’re wrong about oil, too. Heard of Hubbert’s Peak? That’s where we are.

      The other difference of course, is that one of us has their name on their work and cares about credibility … and the other calls himself ‘moonbeam’. Go play with your toys, Moonbeam.

      • moonbeam

        1 – You can certainly make it from natural gas, so “bio-ethanol” is a relevant term.

        2 – So what ? Who is David Pimental ? The ethanol producers claim otherwise.

        3 – okay.

        4 – Gasification was used to produce coal gas (remember those huge several storey tanks they use to have in some suburbs ?).
        The coal was heated to the point that gas and ash was produced.
        The gas was stored in a gasholder (those big tanks). It was also called \’producer gas\’.

        This can be done with any organic material (coal is chemically organic), then you have to separate the gas.
        (I think) this is the process used in coal to liquid conversion.
        Through various (complicated) reactions and machinery you can end up with a combustible liquid.

        5 – Maybe, but I was referring to oil tanker and refining capacity, not the potential oil reserves.
        There is no real incentive for oil companies to increase capacity because that would simply lead to lower oil prices as it did in the 1980s.

        • http://www.caradvice.com.au/ John Cadogan

          Still not thinking big, I see.

          1. You can’t get bio-ethanol here in any significant quantity here. Not relevant. QED

          2. David Pimental is one of the critics, whose claim I reiterated in the story. An acknowledged academic.

          4. Gassification we agree on. This ethanol-condensing gibberish of yours, however is incorrect. The synthesis gas (it’s a CO & H2 mix) is subjected to Fischer-Tropsch synthesis to produce long-chain hydrocarbons (liquid fuels). Google ‘Linc Energy’.

          5. Oil producers are unable to control the price of oil. Or have you been asleep for the past two years?