Can MTBE save Iowa?
Question:
I’m still looking for the article I read about Venezuela suing Canada, but on the way, I found this: http://www.citizen.org/pctrade/harmonizationalert/July99/Mtbe.htm "The Canadian corporation Methanex is suing the U.S. government for $970 million, using the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Methanex claims that California’s ban on methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) violates new investor rights granted to Methanex under NAFTA’s Chapter 11 rules by limiting the corporation’s ability to sell MTBE. "
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->A Canadian province tried to outlaw gasoline with MTBE, and the WTO socked >them with a hundred-million dollar restraint of trade penalty. > That may well be true. It is also true that right now, the mood > in California is strong enough that California would push Really Hard > for the US to withdraw from WTO rather than continue to use MTBE > gasoline any more. The WTO will eventually get a clue. > -george william herbert
Response:
new jersey got rid of mtbe and switched to ethanol additives — Steve Spence Renewable Energy Pages http://www.webconx.com ICQ 50073546 If we don’t believe in freedom of speech for people who we disagree with, we don’t believe in it at all. — – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> A Canadian province tried to outlaw gasoline with MTBE, and the WTO socked > them with a hundred-million dollar restraint of trade penalty. > >Can MTBE save Iowa? > [...] > >Adding oxygen containing compounds to gasoline reduces the > >emission of various polluting peroxides. The EPA directed that > >oxygenated compounds be added to the gasoline in regions with high > >"ozone’ levels (meaning peroxides from car exhaust, and the sort > >of thing that oxygenated compounds reduce). The most common way > >to meet the air quality requirement was to add methyl > >tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE). > >But while MTBE has improved air quality, it is also showing up in > >ground water. This is assumed to be from leaking gasoline storage > >tanks. And since it is more polar than gasoline hydrocarbons, it > >moves much faster through the ground and into wells, than the rest > >of the gasoline does. > We’ve had MTBE in our gasoline here in California for quite some > time, and it’s turning out to be a major pollution problem in its > own right, and will probably be discontinued. > I suggest a web search for ‘MTBE California’. > — > * Daly City California * > ******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******
Response:
Anything crossposted to sci.enviromment is crap. Do not spill crap in civilized newsgroups. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->A Canadian province tried to outlaw gasoline with MTBE, and the WTO socked >them with a hundred-million dollar restraint of trade penalty. > That may well be true. It is also true that right now, the mood > in California is strong enough that California would push Really Hard > for the US to withdraw from WTO rather than continue to use MTBE > gasoline any more. The WTO will eventually get a clue. > -george william herbert
Response:
Anything crossposted to sci.enviromment is crap. Do not spill crap in civilized newsgroups. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> A Canadian province tried to outlaw gasoline with MTBE, and the WTO socked > them with a hundred-million dollar restraint of trade penalty. > This is incorrect. > We (Canada and some dumb Province, either Saskatchewan or more likely > Alberta) tried to outlaw American MTBE while taking no action against > Canadian cracker/distillers who were adding it to their retail product. > The WTO quite rightly stomped on this. > -dlj.
Response:
Anything crossposted to sci.enviromment is crap. Do not spill crap in civilized newsgroups. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->A Canadian province tried to outlaw gasoline with MTBE, and the WTO socked >them with a hundred-million dollar restraint of trade penalty. > Oh? Really? This is exciting! Can someone give a reference? > Mason
Response:
and mtbe/ethanol discussions don’t belong in sci.environment? where else? — Steve Spence Renewable Energy Pages http://www.webconx.com ICQ 50073546 If we don’t believe in freedom of speech for people who we disagree with, we don’t believe in it at all. —
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Anything crossposted to sci.enviromment is crap. Do not spill crap in > civilized newsgroups. > new jersey got rid of mtbe and switched to ethanol additives > — > Steve Spence > Renewable Energy Pages > http://www.webconx.com > ICQ 50073546 > If we don’t believe in freedom of speech > for people who we disagree with, we don’t believe in it at all. > — > > A Canadian province tried to outlaw gasoline with MTBE, and the WTO socked > > them with a hundred-million dollar restraint of trade penalty. > > > >Can MTBE save Iowa? > > > [...] > > > >Adding oxygen containing compounds to gasoline reduces the > > > >emission of various polluting peroxides. The EPA directed that > > > >oxygenated compounds be added to the gasoline in regions with high > > > >"ozone’ levels (meaning peroxides from car exhaust, and the sort > > > >of thing that oxygenated compounds reduce). The most common way > > > >to meet the air quality requirement was to add methyl > > > >tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE). > > > >But while MTBE has improved air quality, it is also showing up in > > > >ground water. This is assumed to be from leaking gasoline storage > > > >tanks. And since it is more polar than gasoline hydrocarbons, it > > > >moves much faster through the ground and into wells, than the rest > > > >of the gasoline does. > > > We’ve had MTBE in our gasoline here in California for quite some > > > time, and it’s turning out to be a major pollution problem in its > > > own right, and will probably be discontinued. > > > I suggest a web search for ‘MTBE California’. > > > — > > > * Daly City California * > > > ******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******
Response:
Anything crossposted to sci.enviromment is crap. Do not spill crap in civilized newsgroups. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > new jersey got rid of mtbe and switched to ethanol additives > — > Steve Spence > Renewable Energy Pages > http://www.webconx.com > ICQ 50073546 > If we don’t believe in freedom of speech > for people who we disagree with, we don’t believe in it at all. > — > A Canadian province tried to outlaw gasoline with MTBE, and the WTO socked > them with a hundred-million dollar restraint of trade penalty. > > >Can MTBE save Iowa? > > [...] > > >Adding oxygen containing compounds to gasoline reduces the > > >emission of various polluting peroxides. The EPA directed that > > >oxygenated compounds be added to the gasoline in regions with high > > >"ozone’ levels (meaning peroxides from car exhaust, and the sort > > >of thing that oxygenated compounds reduce). The most common way > > >to meet the air quality requirement was to add methyl > > >tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE). > > >But while MTBE has improved air quality, it is also showing up in > > >ground water. This is assumed to be from leaking gasoline storage > > >tanks. And since it is more polar than gasoline hydrocarbons, it > > >moves much faster through the ground and into wells, than the rest > > >of the gasoline does. > > We’ve had MTBE in our gasoline here in California for quite some > > time, and it’s turning out to be a major pollution problem in its > > own right, and will probably be discontinued. > > I suggest a web search for ‘MTBE California’. > > — > > * Daly City California * > > ******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******
Response:
Anything crossposted to sci.enviromment is crap. Do not spill crap in civilized newsgroups. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> But others have pointed > out that the > ethanol program does not make sense from an energy standpoint: it takes > more energy (in the form of diesel and gasoline) to plow, plant, and > harvest the corn, and to distill the ethanol from the fermented grain, > than is recovered in the ethanol produced. Overall, the program > increase the need for imported oil. > Jim, > I’m not sure this is correct. Are you? > I have seen it demonstrated that more energy goes into corn than comes out, > but this demonstration relies greatly on the sunlight, ignores the > usefulness of the stalks and roots, and throws in the gas or diesel of the > various tractors at the end. > People throwing gas and diesel numbers around also usually cheat by slipping > in their own notional numbers of how many calories were in the ground before > the oil well was drilled and funny stuff like that. > If you want to claim that the amount in is more than the amount out, you > have to be much more precise about what you are actually claiming, and then > you have to give sources and reasoning before anybody will take you > seriously or think you are doing more than gratuitous handwaving. > You are of course quite right that the fact that Iowa had a primary — > worse, a Republican primary — brought the nonsense from our ankles to our > knees. > -dlj.
Response:
Anything posted to sci.environment is crap. Do not crosspost to civilized newsgroups. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->A Canadian province tried to outlaw gasoline with MTBE, and the WTO socked >them with a hundred-million dollar restraint of trade penalty. > (big cut) > I knew this day was coming. Now what are we going to do? Bureaucratic > trade laws are in direct conflict with bureaucratic environmental laws. The > WTO is a farce, when it forces someone to take a polluting product. I guess > we now need a "one world government" to fix the problem. (Yea, right!) > ; – )
Response:
Anything posted to sci.environment is crap. Do not crosspost to civilized newsgroups. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >A Canadian province tried to outlaw gasoline with MTBE, and the WTO socked > >them with a hundred-million dollar restraint of trade penalty. > (big cut) > I knew this day was coming. Now what are we going to do? Bureaucratic > trade laws are in direct conflict with bureaucratic environmental laws. The > WTO is a farce, when it forces someone to take a polluting product. I guess > we now need a "one world government" to fix the problem. (Yea, right!) > ; – ) > If you don’t want a world government, this is the time to speak. > Jim Trek > http://eznet.net/~progress
– Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/ http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/ (Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals) "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Response:
[ snip ] >If you want to claim that the amount in is more than the amount out, you >have to be much more precise about what you are actually claiming, and then >you have to give sources and reasoning before anybody will take you >seriously or think you are doing more than gratuitous handwaving.
Well, from my own understanding (haven’t bothered to trace the energetics of the reactions involved, though if I crack enough textbooks I should find the necessary rxns 
), it works something like this: You must ferment the corn (never mind that a diesel tractor and thresher had to be used to begin with), and that only gets you to 14% alcohol (mass fractions are used throughout). Then you have to distill it to the 95% azeotrope, and then if you want 100% you need to destroy the azeotrope. The distillation and destruction of the azeotrope are capital and energy intensive and each additional step introduces a much greater cost in the final product. It is no accident that Archer Daniels Midland, producer of 60% of the US’s ethanol per year, gets $2 billion in ethanol subsidies from the federal government. They wouldn’t make a profit on it otherwise. — "The only acceptable rate of unemployment is 0%" – Me.
Response:
The Canadian debacle involved neither WTO nor MTBE. Canada went touchy-feely over MMT, and Ethyl Corp (sole manufacturer) invoked the "investor-to-state" provisions of NAFTA, filing a $251MM lawsuit asserting restraint of trade and "virtual expropriation". Canada reacted naively ("can they do that?") — and lost (settled for $14MM + apology + quashed offending legislation). Presumably the whole thing was an effort to prop up the rapidly haemorraging MTBE maker Methanex, whose plan B was to toast its high-cost Canadian MeOH facilities (done deal). Some bright soul at the Canada/Methanex wake said – hey, I know! – now Methanex is suing California for $1Billion… I figure Canada’s best bet is to legalize the hi-tech agricultural sector in BC (in-basement marijuana cultivation, probably the leading contributor to the provincial economy) – then assert restraint of trade the first time Cheech is busted at Blaine. TMM
Response:
> A Canadian province tried to outlaw gasoline with MTBE, and the WTO socked > them with a hundred-million dollar restraint of trade penalty.
This is incorrect. We (Canada and some dumb Province, either Saskatchewan or more likely Alberta) tried to outlaw American MTBE while taking no action against Canadian cracker/distillers who were adding it to their retail product. The WTO quite rightly stomped on this. -dlj.
Response:
>A Canadian province tried to outlaw gasoline with MTBE, and the WTO socked >them with a hundred-million dollar restraint of trade penalty.
(big cut) I knew this day was coming. Now what are we going to do? Bureaucratic trade laws are in direct conflict with bureaucratic environmental laws. The WTO is a farce, when it forces someone to take a polluting product. I guess we now need a "one world government" to fix the problem. (Yea, right!) ; – )
Response:
> >A Canadian province tried to outlaw gasoline with MTBE, and the WTO socked >them with a hundred-million dollar restraint of trade penalty. > (big cut) > I knew this day was coming. Now what are we going to do? Bureaucratic > trade laws are in direct conflict with bureaucratic environmental laws. The > WTO is a farce, when it forces someone to take a polluting product. I guess > we now need a "one world government" to fix the problem. (Yea, right!) > ; – )
If you don’t want a world government, this is the time to speak. Jim Trek http://eznet.net/~progress
Response:
> >A Canadian province tried to outlaw gasoline with MTBE, and the WTO socked >them with a hundred-million dollar restraint of trade penalty. > (big cut) > I knew this day was coming. Now what are we going to do? Bureaucratic > trade laws are in direct conflict with bureaucratic environmental laws. The > WTO is a farce, when it forces someone to take a polluting product. I guess > we now need a "one world government" to fix the problem. (Yea, right!) > ; – )
But Charlie, its not the first, and won’t be the last. The US has challenged Europe on the trace steriods and antibodics in US Beef, and several environmental laws have been "anticompetive" according to WTO. And do you not think that is the reason for the reason the continent still bans British beef after Mad Cow. This free trade vs environmental protection was one of the hot issues at Seatle
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > [ snip ] >If you want to claim that the amount in is more than the amount out, you >have to be much more precise about what you are actually claiming, and then >you have to give sources and reasoning before anybody will take you >seriously or think you are doing more than gratuitous handwaving. > Well, from my own understanding (haven’t bothered to trace the energetics of > the reactions involved, though if I crack enough textbooks I should find the > necessary rxns ), it works something like this: > You must ferment the corn (never mind that a diesel tractor and thresher had > to be used to begin with), and that only gets you to 14% alcohol (mass > fractions are used throughout). Then you have to distill it to the 95% > azeotrope, and then if you want 100% you need to destroy the azeotrope. The > distillation and destruction of the azeotrope are capital and energy > intensive and each additional step introduces a much greater cost in the > final product. > It is no accident that Archer Daniels Midland, producer of 60% of the US’s > ethanol per year, gets $2 billion in ethanol subsidies from the federal > government. They wouldn’t make a profit on it otherwise. > — > "The only acceptable rate of unemployment is 0%" – Me.
Do not exclude the high protein animal feed suppliment made from the mash residue. Part of your cost and energy balance must be included in the feed to cattle. Cattle would eat the corn, or cattle would eat the corn residue, net energy expenditiure changes because of this.
Response:
>A Canadian province tried to outlaw gasoline with MTBE, and the WTO socked >them with a hundred-million dollar restraint of trade penalty.
That may well be true. It is also true that right now, the mood in California is strong enough that California would push Really Hard for the US to withdraw from WTO rather than continue to use MTBE gasoline any more. The WTO will eventually get a clue. -george william herbert
Response:
>A Canadian province tried to outlaw gasoline with MTBE, and the WTO socked >them with a hundred-million dollar restraint of trade penalty.
Oh? Really? This is exciting! Can someone give a reference? Mason
Response:
> But others have pointed out that the > ethanol program does not make sense from an energy standpoint: it takes > more energy (in the form of diesel and gasoline) to plow, plant, and > harvest the corn, and to distill the ethanol from the fermented grain, > than is recovered in the ethanol produced. Overall, the program > increase the need for imported oil.
Jim, I’m not sure this is correct. Are you? I have seen it demonstrated that more energy goes into corn than comes out, but this demonstration relies greatly on the sunlight, ignores the usefulness of the stalks and roots, and throws in the gas or diesel of the various tractors at the end. People throwing gas and diesel numbers around also usually cheat by slipping in their own notional numbers of how many calories were in the ground before the oil well was drilled and funny stuff like that. If you want to claim that the amount in is more than the amount out, you have to be much more precise about what you are actually claiming, and then you have to give sources and reasoning before anybody will take you seriously or think you are doing more than gratuitous handwaving. You are of course quite right that the fact that Iowa had a primary — worse, a Republican primary — brought the nonsense from our ankles to our knees. -dlj.
Response:
Can MTBE save Iowa? The ethanol program has been promoted as a way to reduce US dependency on imported oil. By adding ethanol to gasoline (to make gasohol) promoters of the program (mostly from corn growing states like Iowa) say that less petroleum is needed to make a gallon of gasoline, since the result is up to 10% ethanol which can be made from domestically grown grains. Like corn. This argument convinces most politicians who campaign in Iowa to speak in favor of continuing the federal subsidy for the program, as the recent Iowa caucuses demonstrated. But others have pointed out that the ethanol program does not make sense from an energy standpoint: it takes more energy (in the form of diesel and gasoline) to plow, plant, and harvest the corn, and to distill the ethanol from the fermented grain, than is recovered in the ethanol produced. Overall, the program increase the need for imported oil. But is there is another justification for it: air pollution reduction? Adding oxygen containing compounds to gasoline reduces the emission of various polluting peroxides. The EPA directed that oxygenated compounds be added to the gasoline in regions with high "ozone’ levels (meaning peroxides from car exhaust, and the sort of thing that oxygenated compounds reduce). The most common way to meet the air quality requirement was to add methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE). But while MTBE has improved air quality, it is also showing up in ground water. This is assumed to be from leaking gasoline storage tanks. And since it is more polar than gasoline hydrocarbons, it moves much faster through the ground and into wells, than the rest of the gasoline does. Ethanol is also an oxygen containing compound that reduced emissions from gasoline. And if it also leaks into the ground water, at the low levels involved, a little ethanol in some wells would not be a problem. Comments? ,,,,,,, (_) USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
Response:
> Can MTBE save Iowa? > The ethanol program has been promoted as a way to reduce US dependency > on imported oil. By adding ethanol to gasoline (to make gasohol) > promoters of the program (mostly from corn growing states like Iowa) say > that less petroleum is needed to make a gallon of gasoline, since the > result is up to 10% ethanol which can be made from domestically grown > grains. Like corn.
The energy derived from burning fermentation alcohol is less than the energy input to obtain and transport it. Fuel fermentation alcohol has a $0.57/gallon goverment subsidy for its production. Do you see the light? It would make more sense to pay off the farmers and burn the corn in the fields. [snip] > But is there is another justification for it: air pollution reduction?
SAVE OUR CHILDREN! TIPPICANOE AND TYLER TOO! WHIP INFLATION NOW! They are lying to you. [snip] > Ethanol is also an oxygen containing compound that reduced emissions > from gasoline. And if it also leaks into the ground water, at the low > levels involved, a little ethanol in some wells would not be a problem.
If humans under the age of 18 consume fermentation alcohol a Federal felony has been committed. Imprison them all! Buncha crap. Legislate that every man, woman, and child must buy a ten pound sack of dried corn each year. That opens a 2.7 billion lb/year market and solves the oversupply problem (until the scond year when everybody plants corn under Federal price supports). How ’bout removing all Federal controls and subsidies and letting the market come to equilibrium? Nah. — Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/ http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/ (Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals) "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Response:
>Can MTBE save Iowa?
[...] >Adding oxygen containing compounds to gasoline reduces the >emission of various polluting peroxides. The EPA directed that >oxygenated compounds be added to the gasoline in regions with high >"ozone’ levels (meaning peroxides from car exhaust, and the sort >of thing that oxygenated compounds reduce). The most common way >to meet the air quality requirement was to add methyl >tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE). >But while MTBE has improved air quality, it is also showing up in >ground water. This is assumed to be from leaking gasoline storage >tanks. And since it is more polar than gasoline hydrocarbons, it >moves much faster through the ground and into wells, than the rest >of the gasoline does.
We’ve had MTBE in our gasoline here in California for quite some time, and it’s turning out to be a major pollution problem in its own right, and will probably be discontinued. I suggest a web search for ‘MTBE California’. — * Daly City California * ******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******
Response:
I like my CH2CH-OH in the peaty, smoky variety, usually neat. There is potential for biomass conversion to electricity as catalysts get better and better – so called Proton Exchange Membranes which are coming close to commercialization may fill the need in transportation and residential applications. The unit I have seen, however, the HomeGen7000, a 7kw unit, is just not efficient enough to warrant purchase, running off natural gas it is about 1/2 as efficient as an internal combustion engine. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Can MTBE save Iowa? > The ethanol program has been promoted as a way to reduce US dependency > on imported oil. By adding ethanol to gasoline (to make gasohol) > promoters of the program (mostly from corn growing states like Iowa) say > that less petroleum is needed to make a gallon of gasoline, since the > result is up to 10% ethanol which can be made from domestically grown > grains. Like corn. > This argument convinces most politicians who campaign in Iowa to speak > in favor of continuing the federal subsidy for the program, as the > recent Iowa caucuses demonstrated. But others have pointed out that the > ethanol program does not make sense from an energy standpoint: it takes > more energy (in the form of diesel and gasoline) to plow, plant, and > harvest the corn, and to distill the ethanol from the fermented grain, > than is recovered in the ethanol produced. Overall, the program > increase the need for imported oil. > But is there is another justification for it: air pollution reduction? > Adding oxygen containing compounds to gasoline reduces the emission of > various polluting peroxides. The EPA directed that oxygenated compounds > be added to the gasoline in regions with high "ozone’ levels (meaning > peroxides from car exhaust, and the sort of thing that oxygenated > compounds reduce). The most common way to meet the air quality > requirement was to add methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE). > But while MTBE has improved air quality, it is also showing up in ground > water. This is assumed to be from leaking gasoline storage tanks. And > since it is more polar than gasoline hydrocarbons, it moves much faster > through the ground and into wells, than the rest of the gasoline does. > Ethanol is also an oxygen containing compound that reduced emissions > from gasoline. And if it also leaks into the ground water, at the low > levels involved, a little ethanol in some wells would not be a problem. > Comments? > ,,,,,,, > (_) > USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable > binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time > call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
Response:
A Canadian province tried to outlaw gasoline with MTBE, and the WTO socked them with a hundred-million dollar restraint of trade penalty.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Can MTBE save Iowa? > [...] >Adding oxygen containing compounds to gasoline reduces the >emission of various polluting peroxides. The EPA directed that >oxygenated compounds be added to the gasoline in regions with high >"ozone’ levels (meaning peroxides from car exhaust, and the sort >of thing that oxygenated compounds reduce). The most common way >to meet the air quality requirement was to add methyl >tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE). >But while MTBE has improved air quality, it is also showing up in >ground water. This is assumed to be from leaking gasoline storage >tanks. And since it is more polar than gasoline hydrocarbons, it >moves much faster through the ground and into wells, than the rest >of the gasoline does. > We’ve had MTBE in our gasoline here in California for quite some > time, and it’s turning out to be a major pollution problem in its > own right, and will probably be discontinued. > I suggest a web search for ‘MTBE California’. > — > * Daly City California * > ******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******
