The other day, Katherine Mangu-Ward of Reason wrote a post noting that ethanol fires are apparently rather difficult to put out. This has come under criticism from Thoreau of Unqualified Offerings:
I’m sure that they’ll offer the key libertarian insights on this: Don’t worry, the market will decide on good fire-fighting technologies for dealing with this problem, and insurance companies will price the risk, enabling the market to fairly and efficiently allocate risk. Besides, if you’re really worried about this, the best approach is to privatize fire departments so that they can respond to market incentives to develop better fire-fighting technologies, and also remove the public guarantee of protection that encourages risky behavior.Standard libertarian gospel.
Oh, wait, they aren’t. They’re offering it as an argument against ethanol fuel.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a big fan of ethanol fuel (or at least not ethanol fuel from subsidized corn). And I’m not even sure that I would always agree with the Standard Libertarian Gospel on industrial and consumer product hazards. Still, it’s just kind of funny to see my fellow libertarians using “Oh no! Somebody might get hurt!” as an argument against a chemical additive. Seriously, this is the best we can do? Not even some token “Well, the public sector fire-fighting bureaucracies will be too short-sighted to respond to this effectively, yet another wing of the state subsidizes it anyway, once again illustrating the inefficiency of Leviathan”?
I'd say that the fires are a justifiable target for libertarian snark to the extent that the government is subsidizing/mandating a fuel that would otherwise be too dangerous to be deployed by the free market. Ethanol has many drawbacks, of course, and fire hazard is probably not the greatest of these. Nonetheless, it adds to the market clearing price at which ethanol will be adopted, helping to make it so high that it never would be adopted without politicians pandering to Iowa.
Every time I see this "may contain up to 10% ethanol" sticker on the pump, I think (sometimes aloud): "May I have my ethanol separately, in a glass?". Though I figure "my car likes its gasoline neat" would do just as well.
There's also talk of ethanol in Diesel fuel. This is an even bigger problem, since ordinary Diesel is fairly inert stuff, flammable but not explosive, so a lot of short cuts (relative to gasoline) are taken in handling it. With ethanol added, it's as bad as gasoline, so much of the transportation infrastructure would have to be modified.
Is ethanol (as it's used in the US, from corn) even a net fuel source? In other words, after adjusting for all of the energy required to run those air-conditioned tractors, transport the fertilizer and corn, etc., does ethanol yield more energy than was used to create it? Clearly it doesn't yield enough additional energy to make it cost-effective, but are we even sure that it's a net positive? And if so, by how much, in percentage terms?
The original idea of ethanol wasn't fuel, it was moving pollution from the crowded streets of LA to the corn fields of Iowa (and moving money into the pockets of Iowa voters). I didn't agree with that, but there was at least a certain logic. Does this expanded use of ethanol even make sense from an energy standpoint? Perhaps it will, if we import cheap sugar from outside the US or figure out how to use switch grasses.
On the topic of private fire departments, some years ago there was a tanker crash in Issaquah (15 miles or so out of Seattle) which was more than the local fire departments could handle (keeping in mind the relatively good coordination between local depts., which sent multiple tankers to the scene) The news showed them pumping foam and water just to prevent nearby businesses from burning down.
Then, an ENORMOUS yellow-green tanker arrived, and the fire seemed to go out a few seconds after they turned on the foam. On the side of the tanker: "Boeing"
So the notion of private fire fighting, unlike some libertarian ideas, is not completely insane.
I think thoreau left out a bit in his projection:
oops, also meant to add that free enterprise is not going to solve a problem it can avoid at no opportunity cost.
of course, another real problem with ethanol fires is that ethanol burns cleanly -- its not really obvious that the ethanol is burning in the first place. if i'm not mistaken indy cars run on alcohol, and the pit crews train to use "help i'm on fire" type hand signals.
Is ethanol (as it's used in the US, from corn) even a net fuel source?
Estimates range all over the map from net loss of energy to 30% return on energy invested. It's not clear if the more optimistic estimates include everything that ought to be bookkept against ethanol (or gasoline for that matter).
If ethanol burns anything like the methanol used in open-wheel racing the first few times a car running 80%+ ethanol gets in a bad accident and breaks open the fuel lines we are going to have a major problem.
As poster Will noted, the Indy car Methanol burns without a visible flame. Open-wheel race car drivers are taught how to signal when their suit is on fire, but how many civilians are going to know enough to communicate that their car runs on ethanol and they are now on fire? Worse, alcohol fires can't be put out with water, so unless the fire department knows what they are facing, you had an additional difficulty in putting it out.
and that's before we consider the problems of just making the ethanol to begin with. But its not like the enviro-nuts ever really thought about the costs of their utopian fantasies.
E85 is still 15% petrochemicals, and can be expected to put out plenty of visible flame. The greater problem is that ethanol absorbs water, which makes it more difficult to ship and causes the foam-dissolving problem described here, and it can combust out of a water mixture if there is enough of it (just like the classic gag of a burning rag that is never consumed).
(nerd mode on)
Ethanol can be put out using nothing but water. Think of all of your flaming drinks; you can't make one using 80 proof (40% alcohol) booze, you need 151 to really get it going. Dilute the ethanol to under 50% and the fire goes out. There's nothing magic about it. The reason that the foam is necessary for gasoline fires is that the water will not dilute it, and the gas just floats on the top. Pour all the water you want on a gas fire, and it will burn until all the gasoline is consumed.
(nerd mode off)
This argument against the use of ethanol is concocted of one part bovine excrement and 5 parts ignorance.
Any problems with existing difficulty in putting out ethanol fires probably is outweighed by gasoline's much greater likelihood to catch fire in the first place.
There's plenty of good arguments to make against the subsidies on economic grounds. Making bad arguments based on safety is counter-productive.
"Any problems with existing difficulty in putting out ethanol fires probably is outweighed by gasoline's much greater likelihood to catch fire in the first place."
Gasoline is many times harder to catch on fire than ethanol. Gas generally requires a precise mixture of air/gas to be flammable under normal conditions. You can easily light ethanol with a match.
Are you saying that if I drop a match into a puddle of gasoline, it won't catch fire?
That's an experiment I won't be trying soon.
I've actually seen people douse matches in gasoline. It is easier in ethanol.
While a larger range of partial pressures of ethanol will ignite, those partial pressures are harder to attain. Gasoline, with a vapor point well below freezing, always vaporizes in any natural environment. Ethanol produces little vapor unless it is warm. Even above the vapor point, it is likely that the partial pressure will not rise to the point that supports explosion.
So, while a tanker crash involving either will result in an inferno, a large, passive ethanol spill will remain safe under conditions where gasoline will present an explosion hazard.