Ethanol wars..what is a liberal to do?

[daenku32]

At first I read Yahoo News article about raising the fuel standards, including the ethanol mandate.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070621/ap_on_go_co/congress_energy;_ylt=AibMtetmmRqdDWh0jU_wjOHMWM0F

Then I read this Reason article, which repeated my long held concern about using food to fuel our cars.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/120995.html

Then I found this Ethanol Producer Magazine article explaining why corn price increase has more to do with pure energy costs, rather than ethanol.
http://ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=3110

Now I'm all confused. What is a "socialist" skeptic like me to do? I don't mind ethanol as long as it doesn't replace food production. But now I don't know if it really does or not. "Ethanol Producer" sounds too much of a special interest to take on face value, but they do raise a point about corn production being more than sufficient.

[ImaginalDisc]

I'd suggest opposing ethanol. It takes nearly as much, if not more, fossil fuel to produce ethanol as energy as can be derived from it. Also, our water sources are already strained in agriculture aswe're mining most of our aquifers. (Aqfer "mining" is when you pump out water faster than the aquifer can be recharged.) So, we can't reasonably support using agriculutre to replace a significant portion of our fossil fuel consumption.

ETA. Making some ethanol from agriculutral "waste" and the the waste of timber mills might be a good idea. Argentina and Brazil get most of their ethanol from bagasse, sugercane waste. But, burning plant matter like that drains the nutrients from the soil, so it's not without problems.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

"Using food to run cars is a dumb idea." - Charles T. Munger, 05/05/2007

[WildCat]

I'd suggest opposing ethanol. It takes nearly as much, if not more, fossil fuel to produce ethanol as energy as can be derived from it. Also, our water sources are already strained in agriculture aswe're mining most of our aquifers. (Aqfer "mining" is when you pump out water faster than the aquifer can be recharged.) So, we can't reasonably support using agriculutre to replace a significant portion of our fossil fuel consumption.
Not only that, but ethanol plants themselves use enormous quantities of water - nearly double the amount of ethanol produced.

[davefoc]

My view of the situation seems to be about the same as WildCat's and ImaginalDisc's.

Unfortunately the best article, I think, on this is a Scientific American article that they charge for. There is lots of other evidence spread around the web that argues roughly the same thing though, i.e. the US approach to ethanol is a scam designed to enrich agricultural interests at the expense of everybody else.

I recently read through some articles about just how much gasoline is actually saved for each gallon ethanol consumed. It is damn little. Even if you take the ethanol advocates word for it, it takes about the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline to end up with 1.33 gallons of ethanol and ethanol has only about 85% of the energy content of gasoline. (please look around yourself and don't take rely too much on my faulty memory here for exact numbers).

Far and away the most important opportunities in the near future for reducing dependence on foreign oil and reducing CO2 creation is conservation. Scientific American ran a short article that suggested that the US could reduce its oil consumption by 70% with a fleet change to plug-in hybrids. This would result in the complete elimination of the need to import foreign oil into the US.

[Art Vandelay]

Seventy percent of oil consumption is transportation. So the only way we could get a 70% reduction is if we switch every vehicle (cars, trucks, trains, buses, boats, planes, etc.) to plug-ins, and not get any of the electricity from oil. And even then, we would have to round up.

[a_unique_person]

I'd suggest opposing ethanol. It takes nearly as much, if not more, fossil fuel to produce ethanol as energy as can be derived from it.

That's what I would have intuitively thought. Is there any evidence for that?

[ImaginalDisc]

That's what I would have intuitively thought. Is there any evidence for that?

Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050705231841.htm)

Cornell University professor of agriculture David Pimental calculates some very disturbing figures. According to Dr. Pimental, it takes more energy to produce a given amount of ethanol than there is energy available in that ethanol. According to his calculations, producing corn and processing it into 1 gallon of ethanol requires 131,000 BTUs of energy; but 1 gallon of ethanol contains only 77,000 BTUs. So producing ethanol actually creates a net energy loss. And since farmers are using fossil-fuel-powered equipment to plant, maintain and harvest the corn and are using fossil-fuel-powered machinery to process that corn into ethanol and then transport that ethanol to collection points (ethanol can't run in underground pipelines because it picks up damaging impurities), the ethanol industry is actually burning large amounts of gasoline to produce ethanol, and that ethanol contains far less energy than the gasoline they consumed to produce it.

But not all scientists agree with Pimental's analysis regarding energy efficiency. Dr. Michael Wang of the Argonne National Laboratory finds that it requires 0.74 million BTUs of fossil fuels to get 1 million BTUs of ethanol to market. That would mean a net gain in energy, not a net loss. (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/ethanol-facts.htm)

At best, ethanol produces a modest "return on investment," in energy costs. At worst, it's a net loss. In any case, growing enough plant matter to replace our gasoline consumption alone would simultaneously drain and pollute our water sources which are already strained beyond sustainable limits.

[davefoc]

I just read through ImaginalDisc's second link. It looks to me to present a balanced view. The ethanol people claim that Pimental has not given ethanol production proper credit for the ethanol production byproduct and has added in some energy costs that they don't feel he should .

Pimental for his part thinks the ethanol people have excluded some kinds of energy usage from the ethanol energy balance that shouldn't have been excluded.

I don't know who's right but the advantages of ethanol production (except as an enhancement to gasoline) look to be small enough whoever you believe that I don't seem much actual advantage to it unless you are a huge conglomerate making billions off of corn ethanol subsidies.

One thing that the article didn't mention was that the holy grail of alcohol production, making it from cellulose, has some detractors also, mainly because completely using up the plant eliminates plant waste which is required to build the soil.

I wonder if it would be possible to burn the plant directly in place of coal in electric generating facilities. That sounds like a way to get the maximum energy possible from the plant.

[Roswell-Perseis]

Ethanol, even if it were produced more effeciently or the energy could be maximized, should never be clung to as a cure for global warming or the environment. I don't hate ethanol persay, but the way people start to talk about it as though it is a cure and not a (costly) quick fix is worrisome.

As a (wannabe) socialist I cannot fathom the ignorance that it would take to focus all of our energy problems onto one solution even after all of the warnings. I dearly wish the government would better subsidize wind and solar for homeowners and small businesses while raising the MPG. However, I would bet on option one over two any day.

[Art Vandelay]

Ethanol, even if it were produced more effeciently or the energy could be maximized, should never be clung to as a cure for global warming or the environment. I don't hate ethanol persay,per se

[Puppycow]

The latest Skeptoid podcast (http://skeptoid.com/) is about ethanol. I think Brian Dunning explains the issue quite well. (You can also read it as a transcript if you don't have audio capability).

[Beerina]

Now I'm all confused. What is a "socialist" skeptic like me to do? I don't mind ethanol as long as it doesn't replace food production. But now I don't know if it really does or not. "Ethanol Producer" sounds too much of a special interest to take on face value, but they do raise a point about corn production being more than sufficient.

Don't forget to compost your waste so it doesn't fill up landfills. Oh, wait, you are supposed to throw yard waste into landfills (and not the modern, areated, biodegrading ones, a nice sealed one) to prevent the carbon dioxide from getting into the air.

"CO2 is the biggest contributor to global warming"? Read this just 2 days ago. So why do we have laws against yard waste in landfills? Because politicians are retarded scientifically illiterate, power hungry @$$holes.

As for ethanol, here's the only thing you need to know: "Hello, Senator. If we force ethanol to be used for 10% of all fuel, this will help the environment and provide huge amounts of cash for your state's farmers."

"Why, I'd be glad to vote for such a bill!"

[Beerina]

BTW, gas would be about $1.39 without this. That's what it dropped briefly to after the first supra-$2 shock five or six summers ago.

[Jimbo07]

Pimental for his part thinks the ethanol people have excluded some kinds of energy usage from the ethanol energy balance that shouldn't have been excluded.


Pimentel is dead wrong.

I've posted backup information on multiple prior threads regarding ethanol.

... Just because ethanol production is energy efficient, in the sense that you get more out than you put in over the lifecycle (and this is especially true in modern plants), that doesn't mean it's a good idea to turn corn or wheat into fuel.

I will agree with those who say it's not a magic bullet, but I don't think opposing any attempt to cut down on oil consumption is not a good strategy. We still have a lot to learn...

[Darth Rotor]

Pimentel is dead wrong.

I've posted backup information on multiple prior threads regarding ethanol.

... Just because ethanol production is energy efficient, in the sense that you get more out than you put in over the lifecycle (and this is especially true in modern plants), that doesn't mean it's a good idea to turn corn or wheat into fuel.

I will agree with those who say it's not a magic bullet, but I don't think opposing any attempt to cut down on oil consumption is not a good strategy. We still have a lot to learn...
Water. Wars have been fought over water.

ID's point on water for the agribusiness cannot be emphasized enough.

Looked at a bit sideways, one would be burning water to power a car, as a second order effect, based on how much water is used to grow the plant to make ethanol from.

In burning oil, you don't do that, though you often use Mud to back fill an oil well, so that's a water input to oil output problem as well.

DR

[MilwaukeeMike]

"Using food to run cars is a dumb idea." - Charles T. Munger, 05/05/2007

Who the hell is that?:piconfused:

[MilwaukeeMike]

Not only that, but ethanol plants themselves use enormous quantities of water - nearly double the amount of ethanol produced.

How about we use desalinized water from the ocean to counter the rise from global warming? :czrobo:

I just discovered all the other smilies, so expect one on every post I write.

[BPSCG]

This would result in the complete elimination of the need to import foreign oil into the US.How do you feel about importing domestic oil?

[Jimbo07]

Water. Wars have been fought over water.

ID's point on water for the agribusiness cannot be emphasized enough.

Looked at a bit sideways, one would be burning water to power a car, as a second order effect, based on how much water is used to grow the plant to make ethanol from.

because bitumen processes use no oil at all...


a water input to oil output problem as well.


a wee one...
...

MM... if we had all the available energy to desalinate ocean water on industrial scales, we could just use it for drinking and these arguments would be moot.

[davefoc]

Pimentel is dead wrong.

I've posted backup information on multiple prior threads regarding ethanol.

... Just because ethanol production is energy efficient, in the sense that you get more out than you put in over the lifecycle (and this is especially true in modern plants), that doesn't mean it's a good idea to turn corn or wheat into fuel.

I will agree with those who say it's not a magic bullet, but I don't think opposing any attempt to cut down on oil consumption is not a good strategy. We still have a lot to learn...

I take from the above that you essentially agree that the energy gain from ethanol derived from corn is small and that the costs and environmental effects probably outweigh its benefits except perhaps as an additive to gasoline?

What are the problems with burning the corn plant, at least to be used to generate some of the process heat required for ethanol production?

[ImaginalDisc]

I take from the above that you essentially agree that the energy gain from ethanol derived from corn is small and that the costs and environmental effects probably outweigh its benefits except perhaps as an additive to gasoline?

What are the problems with burning the corn plant, at least to be used to generate some of the process heat required for ethanol production?

Water and pollution concerns aside? Nutrient depletion. If you keep burning biomass from the same acreage, year after year, you'll have to add those nutrients from some other source.

[davefoc]

Water and pollution concerns aside? Nutrient depletion. If you keep burning biomass from the same acreage, year after year, you'll have to add those nutrients from some other source.

Absolutely, one way of getting to the truth of this thing is to force producer's to generate the ethanol production inputs from renewable resources.

If trucking required the trucks need to run on renewable resources.

Tractors and other farm equipment need to be fueled from renewable resources.

Fertilizers need to be made in factories powered from renewable resources or renewable ways need to be found to grow corn.

etc.

I don't see this happening for another twenty years or so when the corruption of the program has become so apparent and so costly that the producers are forced to try other tactics to keep their gravy train rolling.

[ImaginalDisc]

Absolutely, one way of getting to the truth of this thing is to force producer's to generate the ethanol production inputs from renewable resources.

If trucking required the trucks need to run on renewable resources.

Tractors and other farm equipment need to be fueled from renewable resources.

Fertilizers need to be made in factories powered from renewable resources or renewable ways need to be found to grow corn.

etc.

I don't see this happening for another twenty years or so when the corruption of the program has become so apparent and so costly that the producers are forced to try other tactics to keep their gravy train rolling.

Ethanol has nothing to recommend it for the long-term. I imagine that the long-term should ideally have the following sources.

Coal. Coal's the dirtiest, nastiest fossil fuel, which makes it arguably the worst of the worst, but it's cheap, and plentiful. The U.S. has enough coal to burn it for at least a few thousand years. It's a big source of pollution, but even with expensive scrubbers and sequestration, the total cost of power from coal is substantially cheaper than many alternatives. China and India have plenty of coal, too. They're likely to use it for at least the near term.

Nuclear. Per unit energy, nuclear energy is the second cheapest. Nuclear plants are hideously expensive to build and maintain, and dealing with waste is a problem that will hound us for hundreds of thousands of years. But, it's just about the only non-renewable energy source that will last us for longer than coal, if exploited.

Wind. Some wind turbines have produced power cheaper, per unit, than even nuclear power under ideal conditions. Ideal conditions aren't common, however. Germany's the world leader in wind power at the moment, which is hardly surprising. Putting wind turbines on the Alps is a bit like merging Fritz Lang with The Sound of Music, "The hills! The hills are alive with the power of free energy, and only my genius can unlock it!"

Solar. Solar's also ridiculously espensive because the materials of solar panels are costly. Passive solar power, such as solar water heaters, and smart buildings that use passive solar energy to control indoor climate, would ease pressure on a lot of systems. If solar could be made cheaper, we'd be in better shape.

Natural gas and oil? Maybe we can use natural gas for some time, but let's face it, oil has peaked and the bottom of the barrel is 50-60 years away.

Ethanol is just a joke. It would be funny if it weren't backed by politcally powerful farm lobbies that are already too heavily subsidized. Indirect farm subsidies include, to my horror, cheap water. Some farmers are charged as little as $8 per acre-foot of water. That's a little over 325,000 gallons.

[Billdave2]

The company I work for sells polypropylene and polyester film for industial use (like the windows in lofding cartons, bags, etc). We had started a push to offer a corn-based biodegradeable film (environment friendly) to our customers. Then the price of corn went up and that means we had to raise our price and you know the rest of the story. It isn't just food vs. fuel. There are other opportunities lost when corn is converted to fuel.

[geni]

How do you feel about importing domestic oil?

That would depend how you feel about more refinaries.

[Darth Rotor]

because bitumen processes use no oil at all...
Did you mean no oil, or no water? IIRC, you are referring to coal processing.
MM... if we had all the available energy to desalinate ocean water on industrial scales, we could just use it for drinking and these arguments would be moot.
It isn't the drinking problem, it is all the uses water goes to.

Agriculture
Recreation
Drinking
Sanitary actions
Industrial.
Fisheries

More that I doubtless have neglected. (IIRC over half the water used in a given water shed is for agriculture, depends on state, however.)

The Desalinization idea you offer has to deal with pumping water up stream from sea level as an associated cost. More energy sunb, but perhaps a good idea for all that.

DR

[DanishDynamite]

At first I read Yahoo News article about raising the fuel standards, including the ethanol mandate.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070621/ap_on_go_co/congress_energy;_ylt=AibMtetmmRqdDWh0jU_wjOHMWM0F

Then I read this Reason article, which repeated my long held concern about using food to fuel our cars.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/120995.html

Then I found this Ethanol Producer Magazine article explaining why corn price increase has more to do with pure energy costs, rather than ethanol.
http://ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=3110

Now I'm all confused. What is a "socialist" skeptic like me to do? I don't mind ethanol as long as it doesn't replace food production. But now I don't know if it really does or not. "Ethanol Producer" sounds too much of a special interest to take on face value, but they do raise a point about corn production being more than sufficient.
Firstly, drop the political baggage and just look for the facts. Only when you are reasonably sure of the facts can you make an informed opinion on what to do, based on those facts.

[Jimbo07]

Did you mean no oil, or no water? IIRC, you are referring to coal processing.

No, I'm referring to Oil Sands. In short, North America's near-term energy future.

Oil Sands -> Bitumen -> Upgraded product (ideally, light synthetic crude) -> refined product

All of these processes require LOTS of water. Ethanol is no prize in terms of water, just don't discount oil. Maybe something like light sweet crude is less water intensive, but it's getting harder to come by. Industry is shifting its focus away from conventional reserves.

My support for ethanol comes right in line with davefoc. It is best used as a fuel additive, and returns seem to be optimized in about a 10-15% blend (in terms of emissions reductions, consumption reduction, etc.).

The engineering is another matter entirely. There aren't enough plants to support an 85% blended fleet. Not enough plants can be built in the near term to fully support a 10% blended fleet. Similarly, there aren't enough refineries in North America to help bring regular gas prices down. My question to alternative energy advocates: what is your engineering plan? How, exactly, do you propose to go from "Solar (or X) is great! This is how we'll use it to solve all our problems... ?"


It isn't the drinking problem, it is all the uses water goes to.

Agriculture
Recreation
Drinking
Sanitary actions
Industrial.
Fisheries

More that I doubtless have neglected. (IIRC over half the water used in a given water shed is for agriculture, depends on state, however.)

The Desalinization idea you offer has to deal with pumping water up stream from sea level as an associated cost. More energy sunb, but perhaps a good idea for all that.

DR

Well, I was actually being somewhat sarcastic, and not really offering an idea. I believe that freshwater consumption is a serious problem and ranges far beyond the ethanol debate (see above for my thoughts on consumption in oil processes).

[Beerina]

Did you mean no oil, or no water? IIRC, you are referring to coal processing.

It isn't the drinking problem, it is all the uses water goes to.

Agriculture
Recreation
Drinking
Sanitary actions
Industrial.
Fisheries


Tom Lykas, who used to to a leftist show before he converted to a Jerry Springer clone outraging women on the radio, pointed out how home use was only like 10% of water use in California, and that mandating smaller toilet tanks was essentially useless in the bigger picture, which is almost all agriculture watering up a desert so we in the North can buy fruit and vegetables in the dead of winter.

And any real man can tell ya that there's yet to be invented a low-flow toilet that can handle a couple o' true, man-sized [petunias].

[daredelvis]

According to his calculations, producing corn and processing it into 1 gallon of ethanol requires 131,000 BTUs of energy; but 1 gallon of ethanol contains only 77,000 BTUs. So producing ethanol actually creates a net energy loss.


I have a question about these numbers. Does the 131k BTU number include energy from the sun during plant growth? I don't doubt that it might not, and that the difference in the numbers is being made up by subsidies, but I just think that should be clear.

Daredelvis

[Darth Rotor]

No, I'm referring to Oil Sands. In short, North America's near-term energy future.

Oil Sands -> Bitumen -> Upgraded product (ideally, light synthetic crude) -> refined product

All of these processes require LOTS of water. Ethanol is no prize in terms of water, just don't discount oil. Maybe something like light sweet crude is less water intensive, but it's getting harder to come by. Industry is shifting its focus away from conventional reserves.

Thanks, got it. Jimbo07, putting the E in JREF. :)

The engineering is another matter entirely. There aren't enough plants to support an 85% blended fleet. Not enough plants can be built in the near term to fully support a 10% blended fleet. Similarly, there aren't enough refineries in North America to help bring regular gas prices down. My question to alternative energy advocates: what is your engineering plan? How, exactly, do you propose to go from "Solar (or X) is great! This is how we'll use it to solve all our problems... ?"
I agree completely. From concept to functional reality is no small step.

DR

[Jimbo07]

I have a question about these numbers. Does the 131k BTU number include energy from the sun during plant growth? I don't doubt that it might not, and that the difference in the numbers is being made up by subsidies, but I just think that should be clear.

Daredelvis

Don't bother with the numbers. His methods are suspect, his data are almost 30 years out of date, he loves self-citation (that is, he's been piping the same tune for almost that time), and his conclusions are... well... only really accepted by those who want to accept t

[davefoc]

Tom Lykas, who used to to a leftist show before he converted to a Jerry Springer clone outraging women on the radio, pointed out how home use was only like 10% of water use in California, and that mandating smaller toilet tanks was essentially useless in the bigger picture, which is almost all agriculture watering up a desert so we in the North can buy fruit and vegetables in the dead of winter.


I wonder if Tom took into account the cost of treating waste water?

[Iamme]

How do you feel about importing domestic oil?

(As opposed to importing foreign oil.) LOL.

I'd import some domestic oil so I could use it to fire up my HOT water heater. :)

[Iamme]

Water and pollution concerns aside? Nutrient depletion. If you keep burning biomass from the same acreage, year after year, you'll have to add those nutrients from some other source.


Ya. We'll keep the fertilizer plants running 24/7/365. I wonder what powers THEM?

[Iamme]

Who the hell is that?:piconfused:

Charles T. Munger? Why...he has a brother that is best friends of Bush? His name is...(drum roll) HWAR Munger!

[rtalman]

How about we use desalinized water from the ocean to counter the rise from global warming?I cannot fathom the logistics of getting the desalinized water from the coasts to the plains states.

[Iamme]

Someone mentioned conservation.

Hmmmm.

Well, the world's population keeps growing, so where will this get us, and for how long?

Also, economically, oil companies know we will still need there oil, even if in lesser amounts, right? So if we NEED it, they will gladly charge 10 times more for the same unit amount, and just sell less of it to make their money. They are going to get are money one way or another.

Just like how Hardees now would rather charge you $4.50 for a goliath burger (made up)...sell less burgers for more money... instead of competing with McD's and BK over $1 menus...who sell more burgers for cheaper.

Or...Just like with ethanol? Notice how gas prices and corn prices have both come down since ethanol use is becoming more widespread? (Cough)

[Iamme]

How about incorporating sewer line generators. The more the toilets get flushed the faster it spins.

But no, that be dumb since the energy required to draw the water would go up with more useage.

Hmmm. Sounds sort of like the story of using more fossil fuel to get a lesser amount of ethanol. And if THAT industry can be subsidized...maybe the toilet industry could get subsidized.

(I feel like I have been drinking tonight, even though I haven't started...yet.)

[Jimbo07]

Or...Just like with ethanol? Notice how gas prices and corn prices have both come down since ethanol use is becoming more widespread? (Cough)

I assume that was a cough of sarcasm? Frankly, I don't know how widespread the use of ethanol has become in the States, but I'd suggest NOT ENOUGH to affect gas prices significantly.

As an oxygenate, it's taking the place of MTBE...



Hmmm. Sounds sort of like the story of using more fossil fuel to get a lesser amount of ethanol.

You should read the rest of the thread...

[WildCat]

I assume that was a cough of sarcasm? Frankly, I don't know how widespread the use of ethanol has become in the States, but I'd suggest NOT ENOUGH to affect gas prices significantly.
You really don't? I assume you don't live in the US? Bacause many states require all gasoline sold to be at least 10% ethanol. It is driving up corn prices, as well as beef, chicken, pork, and any other meat fed with corn. Prices of other vegetables and grains are also rising as acreage is converted to corn to make ethanol.

Ethanol is a monumentally stupid choice for energy production.

[Jimbo07]

You really don't? I assume you don't live in the US?

Good assumption. I live in Canada. Similar to corn, ethanol is seen in some provinces as an agricultural value-add. It's worse in Western Canada, because here they've decided to use wheat!


Bacause many states require all gasoline sold to be at least 10% ethanol.

I know that. It is replacing MTBE as a fuel additive.


It is driving up corn prices, as well as beef, chicken, pork, and any other meat fed with corn. Prices of other vegetables and grains are also rising as acreage is converted to corn to make ethanol.

I know that, too. However, some politicians were advocating that ethanol could help reduce dependence on foreign oil, in effect positively influencing gas prices. I don't know that the use of ethanol (even in 10% blend in some states), is really going to be enough to positively influence gas prices. As it stands today, only about 15% of grown corn is fed to humans.


Ethanol is a monumentally stupid choice for energy production.

No, it sure isn't. Fossil fuels are monumentally stupid, ethanol is merely stupid. A step in the right direction, I say! :D

Jimbo's handy fuels chart:

Fuel.............................................. .......Complexity........Suitability
Fossil............................................ ........Easy................Monumentally Stupid
Ethanol from corn/wheat...........................Hard.............. ..Stupid
Biofuels (incl. ethanol)from waste biomass....Very Hard.........Good!
etc.
Magic Energy..........................................MU CH HARDER...Awesome!

:D

[davefoc]

Magic Energy..........................................MU CH HARDER...Awesome!

:D

Why don't we stop messing around and focus our efforts on magic energy. The payoff looks much better.

[ImaginalDisc]

Don't bother with the numbers. His methods are suspect, his data are almost 30 years out of date, he loves self-citation (that is, he's been piping the same tune for almost that time), and his conclusions are... well... only really accepted by those who want to accept t

Really? I can't find precisely what data he used, but this the release from Cornell Univeristy.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.html

[Jimbo07]

Really? I can't find precisely what data he used, but this the release from Cornell Univeristy.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.html

Okay, flash forward to the heady days of 2003 and the specific paper I was rebutting (although he sang the same tune for decades and continues to do so):

Ethanol Fuels: Energy Balance... (http://www.ethanol-gec.org/netenergy/neypimentel.pdf)

Look at his agricultural estimates in Table 1. He self-cites data from 1980. Table 2 includes data for plant construction. No other life cycle analysis does this. Where is his comparison for traditional fuel plants (refineries, upgraders, etc.)? Starting on p. 130, his section on environmental impacts is essentially a rant. Beyond citations, he provides no original data. He has not done a J/km driven comparison. In short, he does not compare apples to apples in any category.

Now, those are some highlights, and could just be construed as a rant on my part. I'm using them for you as a sort of cherry-picked public domain highlight of how to start thinking about his work. I spent the better part of a year doing a much more detailed comparison of many studies. Interestingly, I found that many nay-saying studies (eg. Patzek) wound up tied back to Pimentel.

Beyond doing a... whatever... meta-analysis, if you will, of multiple studies, I also used the GHGenius model both with public data and proprietary data from a real-world operating ethanol plant, plus projected proprietary data from two modern plants under construction.

For a brief time, I became an expert on a curious little fuel additive that, 500 years from now, will be relegated to the dustbin of energy history. I'm so proud! :D

[daredelvis]

Really? I can't find precisely what data he used, but this the release from Cornell Univeristy.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.html

A University press release is not worth the paper it is written on. I knew people who wrote press releases where I did my Postdoc, and they will spew out whatever garbage the researcher feeds them. My favorite example was the acupuncture study that showed a statistically insignificant difference between treatment and control. Press release!!!!

A claim like this should be able to make it into a peer reviewed journal and I don’t think the Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology would qualify.


Daredelvis

[ImaginalDisc]

Okay, flash forward to the heady days of 2003 and the specific paper I was rebutting (although he sang the same tune for decades and continues to do so):

Ethanol Fuels: Energy Balance... (http://www.ethanol-gec.org/netenergy/neypimentel.pdf)

Look at his agricultural estimates in Table 1. He self-cites data from 1980. Table 2 includes data for plant construction. No other life cycle analysis does this. Where is his comparison for traditional fuel plants (refineries, upgraders, etc.)? Starting on p. 130, his section on environmental impacts is essentially a rant. Beyond citations, he provides no original data. He has not done a J/km driven comparison. In short, he does not compare apples to apples in any category.

Now, those are some highlights, and could just be construed as a rant on my part. I'm using them for you as a sort of cherry-picked public domain highlight of how to start thinking about his work. I spent the better part of a year doing a much more detailed comparison of many studies. Interestingly, I found that many nay-saying studies (eg. Patzek) wound up tied back to Pimentel.

Beyond doing a... whatever... meta-analysis, if you will, of multiple studies, I also used the GHGenius model both with public data and proprietary data from a real-world operating ethanol plant, plus projected proprietary data from two modern plants under construction.

For a brief time, I became an expert on a curious little fuel additive that, 500 years from now, will be relegated to the dustbin of energy history. I'm so proud! :D

You know, aside from those criticisms you mentioned, he keeps using the word "corn" as though it were remotely informative. There's a huge number of corn varieties being cultivated, and sweet corn for human consumption isn't the best variety for ethanol production to begin with. So if any of his data on the energy costs to produce "corn" include sweet varieties, he's in trouble right there.

[Jimbo07]

You know, aside from those criticisms you mentioned, he keeps using the word "corn" as though it were remotely informative. There's a huge number of corn varieties being cultivated, and sweet corn for human consumption isn't the best variety for ethanol production to begin with. So if any of his data on the enerrgy costs to produce "corn" include sweet varieties, he's in trouble right there.

Good catch, and that's the sort of thing I want to lead people toward. We've cultivated corn with higher protein and lower starch, which is exactly the opposite of what you want to do for ethanol production. There are varieties of corn which might give you double or triple the starch.

daredelvis: He is a prof. emeritus at Cornell. Related to his position on fues, I saw an article with a photograph of him standing in front of a gas station. I don't know the man, but he gives the impression of somebody who likes attention...

[ImaginalDisc]

Good catch, and that's the sort of thing I want to lead people toward. We've cultivated corn with higher protein and lower starch, which is exactly the opposite of what you want to do for ethanol production. There are varieties of corn which might give you double or triple the starch.

Thanks. You did a great job on that article, by the way. Kick ass. Ok, so the evidence for ethanol being a net loss is at best sketchy. Even so, we have water and pollution issues which would likely make growing corn for ethanol production a big problem. I'm all for using bagasse and agricultural waste for ethanol production, as long as we don't overfertilize to compensate for the nutrient depletion.

[Jimbo07]

Sweet Cracker Sandwich!

I've been re-reading this thread and realized that I made a typo in a sarcastic statement on the first page, rendering it completely incomprehensible. My follow-up was worse! gngngn... :mad:

...

Okay.

Start again... new track... see the science and tech forum.

[davefoc]

This is a link to a US Department of Agriculture 2002 report about the net energy balance of ethanol production.

http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm#farm

The study concludes that there is a net energy gain of 24% for ethanol production. Although the study is done by a potentially biased source it appears to have been done objectively.

Conclusion from the report:
We conclude that the NEV [net energy value] of corn ethanol is positive when fertilizers are produced by modern processing plants, corn is converted in modern ethanol facilities, farmers achieve normal corn yields, and energy credits are allocated to coproducts. Our NEV estimate of 16,193 Btu/gal can be considered conservative, since it was derived using the replacement method for valuing coproducts, and it does not include energy credits for plants that sell carbon dioxide. Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.24, that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol, there is a 24-percent energy gain. Moreover, producing ethanol from domestic corn stocks achieves a net gain in a more desirable form of energy. Ethanol production utilizes abundant domestic energy supplies of coal and natural gas to convert corn into a premium liquid fuel that can replace petroleum imports by a factor of 7 to 1.The study is too detailed for me to go through fully and to compare in depth to Pimental's work which the study references.

But a few comments:
1. Note that the 24% gain is based on fertilizers produced in modern processing plants and ethanol is produced in modern ethanol facilities. Probably not every facility is up to the highest modern efficiency standards so the 24% might be higher than the real world accomplishes.

2. One of Pimental's main objections was the environmental impacts of corn growing. This report didn't deal with that.

3. I looked for, but didn't see, where they added in the energy cost of building the farm machinery. Pimental added that into his calculations.

4. The utility of ethanol production to reduce carbon buildup might be reduced when one considers that if the land wasn't planted with corn there would at least be something growing on it that might lead to some carbon sequestration in the soil.

5. Was the extra energy required to transport high percentage ethanol/gas mixes included in these calculations? I believe that normal pipelines used for gasoline transport can't be used for ethanol.

6. I wasn't very thorough when I went through the reports, but I didn't see where anybody addressed the issue of improved corn varieties designed for ethanol production.

From Pimental's article on the environmental impact:
Some of the economic and energy contributions of the by-products mentioned earlier are negated by the environmental pollution costs associated with ethanol production. These are estimated to be more than 23cents per gallon (Table 2). U.S. corn production
causes more total soil erosion that any otherU.S. crop (Pimentel and others, 1995; Pimentel, 2002). In addition, corn production uses more herbicides and insecticides
than any other crop produced in the U.S. thereby causing more water pollution than any other
crop (Pimentel and others, 1993). Further, corn production uses more nitrogen fertilizer than any crop produced and therefore is a major contributor to ground water and river water pollution (NAS, 2002).
In someWestern irrigated corn acreage, ground water is being mined 25% faster than the natural recharge of its aquifer (Pimentel and others, 1997). All these factors suggest that the environmental system in which U.S. corn is being produced is being rapidly degraded. Further, it substantiates the conclusion that the U.S. corn production system is not environmentally sustainable for the future, unless major changes are made in the cultivation of this major
food/feed crop. Corn is raw material for ethanol production, but cannot be considered to provide a renewable energy source.

[Oakheart]

Well I think you are right about ethanol. It is not the solution. It is another example of how government subsidies and mandate help our some of the people and hurt others. Perhaps if we hadn't been subsidizing big oil for so long the market would have found it's own solution. That is what needs to happen. Let the price of gas go though the roof and then we can see what will come around to replace it. Hemp fuels maybe? They don't require much processing or even diesel which requires far less then gas. That won't help with global warming or pollution but that is something the government can at least try to regulate. The American car companies are going to have to increase fuel efficiencies if they plan to compete because the foreign companies are way ahead of them already. The market demands it and it will come to pass. There may be a better system then capitalist democracy but I don't know what it is?

Happy Day

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, since someone killed the electric car (http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/), I don't know just what our options are. Even if we went electric, we'd be faced with a pressing need for more power generation. That would likely result in a net reduction in air pollution, as mobile sources for air pollution (planes, trains, automobiles, etc, but mostly automobiles) exceed point sources, such as power plants.

[dakotajudo]

Ethanol is just a joke. It would be funny if it weren't backed by politcally powerful farm lobbies that are already too heavily subsidized.

Exactly what would these lobbies be, by name? And exactly how are they heavily subsidized?

If you meant to say "agribusiness lobbies", then you might be correct, but from my experience, the farm lobbies aren't all that powerful. Specially not compared to, say, oil lobbies.

But then, I've only been involved with the South Dakota Soybean Association (they funded my graduate research, and run the local soybean processing plant) and the South Dakota Wheat Commission (they fund the breeders I work most closely with, so I've met a of the few farmers on the commission). These entities are funded largely by checkoff dollars - that is, farmers allow a certain percentage of their wheat or soybean sales to go to these agencies for promotions.

I am honestly curious here. I've not bothered to exactly compare how much is spend by the various farm producer lobbying groups, compared to agribusiness or the oil businesses, but I can't imagine they can spend near as much.

I have an idea what the typical farmer gets for subsidies (there's a database that's public information, and I have family and friends listed) - but I don't know how to the numbers on oil industry subsidies.

So where do you get your information on this?


Indirect farm subsidies include, to my horror, cheap water. Some farmers are charged as little as $8 per acre-foot of water. That's a little over 325,000 gallons.

Where are these farmers? 'round here, it's almost all dryland production. Water's free; it falls from the sky. Can't get cheaper than that. IIRC, only about 5-10% farmland is irrigated.


I do agree, though, that for the long-term, corn-based ethanol is not feasible. But you have to start somewhere.

We've cultivated corn with higher protein and lower starch, which is exactly the opposite of what you want to do for ethanol production. There are varieties of corn which might give you double or triple the starch.

Doubt it. Corn going to run at least 65% starch - can't really double that, can you? I would doubt you could push starch much higher than 80-85%.
Protein is about 10%; while it could be dropped, that would make corn useless as a feed. And that would result in another problem - how do you keep the low protein corn out of the food chain? The local wheat breeder has identified "blue" wheat, that could be used to develop low protein lines specifically for ethanol production - the blue color would prevent these varieties from getting mixed at the elevators.

That's why there's a push to switchgrass and other cellulosic sources - most of the nitrogen and other nutrients is reallocated to roots during senescence, so that what is harvested is almost entirely carbon (it also contains more lignin and silicon compared to corn, but that's a whole other problem).


You know, aside from those criticisms you mentioned, he keeps using the word "corn" as though it were remotely informative. There's a huge number of corn varieties being cultivated, and sweet corn for human consumption isn't the best variety for ethanol production to begin with. So if any of his data on the energy costs to produce "corn" include sweet varieties, he's in trouble right there.

That's a bit silly, actually. Pimental got his statistics from the USDA, and the USDA categorizes sweet corn as a vegetable; it's not included in any of the corn data. Neither is pop corn or Indian corn, or any of the other exotics.

The current USDA standard for "corn" is

Grain that consists of 50 percent or more of whole kernels of shelled dent corn and/or shelled flint corn (Zea mays L.) and not more than 10.0 percent of other grains for which standards have been established under the United States Grain Standards Act.


In this context, corn is quite informative.

And if there is an concern, I'd be more worried that he includes corn for silage in his estimates - that number's going to be much larger than sweet corn, and more likely to be confounded.

Why? - well, a lot of the corn in the field right now could end up as either silage or seed. Don't know yet - farmer might decide that it's been too dry to count on a good harvest, and put up more corn as silage. But the planting and cultivation up to a point is the same. These shared expenses might not be tracked correctly; at least, it's easier to confuse this overlap than to get sweet corn and field corn mixed up.

Not that it doesn't happen, in trivial amounts. Dad would plant a small patch of sweet corn in with the field corn. We'd pick some by hand in the summer, but not all of it, so a bit would be combined.

But probably not more contamination than you'd get from handling in an elevator along with other grains.

[Jimbo07]

Doubt it. Corn going to run at least 65% starch - can't really double that, can you? I would doubt you could push starch much higher than 80-85%.
Protein is about 10%; while it could be dropped, that would make corn useless as a feed. And that would result in another problem - how do you keep the low protein corn out of the food chain? The local wheat breeder has identified "blue" wheat, that could be used to develop low protein lines specifically for ethanol production - the blue color would prevent these varieties from getting mixed at the elevators.


I'm going to have to defer to you here. I have to admit, my knowledge of corn varieties isn't perfect. However, you haven't fully invalidated my point. Crops grown for fuels would not, in fact, be geared toward the food chain. BTW, for those interested, once the grain has gone through the process you wind up with DDGS, which can be put into feed.

Oh, and I should apologize. As I get farther away from that project, details have become fuzzier, and my opinion has become more entrenched as personal dogma. Fortunately, my professional reputation is not sufficiently advanced for me to lose much recognition due to spouting off at the mouth. ;)