Ethanol

[GreyICE]

Well, excuse me for trying to lighten the tone a bit. I'll stick to "humourless prig" mode form now on.

I'm fine with a little humor. You used humor to dodge a question. I'm going to call you on that, obviously.

Currently, ethanol is the most viable alternative to gasoline. Since this doesn't seem likely to change, despite the strides made in fuel cells, we probably should look into it.

I explained it in the bit you pretty much chose to ignore, in favour of creating yet another strawman argument.

The issue isn't the infrastructure of ethanol use or distribution, it's in the production.

You just assume that the milling processes for corn will work for other materials. That hasn't been clearly demonstrated. Then you say, "Oh, if they don't work as well, we just won't use them!", which means we're still stuck with corn.

Once again, you nicely slide by the point.

Lets consider a hypothetical source, source B. Source B has a ratio of 1.37, but has no useful coproducts. The entirety of its value comes from creating ethanol.

We don't shut the corn mills down. We continue to create ethanol from corn, but also create ethanol from Source B. The ratio will depend on the value and demand for corn-ethanol coproducts against the demand for ethanol itself.

In fact, the only reason to shut the corn mill down was if Source B was so good at producing ethanol that the price of ethanol plummets, and it's not financially viable to produce it from corn. In other words, the only way your argument is at all a concern is if the new source succeeds beyond the proponents' wildest dreams.

But are they inherently more useful than the existing products that they will supplant? The whole coproducts credit analysis is based on the assumption that the corn coproducts will replace other similar products, so the simple fact that there are coproducts cannot by itself make corn ethanol more acceptable.

Explained above why it does exactly that.

I never said it was. Why, if your position is so obviously correct, do you have to resort to strawman arguments to discuss the issue? I'm trying to have a serious discussion of how best to utilize our limited resources to improve our energy situation, and you're flying off with silly homoeopathic ethanol nonsense, while ignoring (or not understanding) my actual point.

Good job!

And yet you flew by the actual point because you don't understand that the two methods can exist side by side exactly because of coproducts. Since they are both producing the exact same product the infrastructure works for both. Your argument only works for fuels that have different infrastructures, such as gasoline and ethanol. You keep hypothesizing a high changeover cost, which would only occur if the fuel had some property that made it different than corn ethanol.

What am I supposed to call this property?

Just so.

Okay, since you don't seem to understand why the question was a rhetorical dead end, let me turn it around:

Why are you so set on preserving a system that you know can't sustain us in the long term?

Now do you quite get what you did? It's the "How long have you been cheating on your wife" question.

 

[Horatius]

We don't shut the corn mills down. We continue to create ethanol from corn, but also create ethanol from Source B. The ratio will depend on the value and demand for corn-ethanol coproducts against the demand for ethanol itself.

And if corn and it's coproducts are so useful, and are already producing useful energy and valuable resources, why do they still need billions in government sponsorship? By your own admission, and that of the papers you linked to, corn ethanol is already at a level that this higher than what they thought it should be at. Why isn't it considered a mature technology at this point? Why does it still need such protection in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, and even new legislation?

And as for the new source B, then we have to consider the whole system costs, including the amount of land used to grow each crop that forms the source you use. Will source B crops be grown on land that is currently used for corn, or will it supplant other crops? How much extra cropland can be utilized, and will the new crop be able to produce enough to make a dent in our oil usage? These are important trade off questions that are being swept under the rug by the people who keep lining up to get the government to enact legislation that will protect their businesses, at the expense of everybody else.

It's not just a physical structure that you can get locked into, you know. There are laws being passed about corn production and ethanol.

Why are you so set on preserving a system that you know can't sustain us in the long term?

Now do you quite get what you did? It's the "How long have you been cheating on your wife" question.

And that's not a strawman, is it? It's a loaded question, intended to make you think about your assumptions.

 

[GreyICE]

And if corn and it's coproducts are so useful, and are already producing useful energy and valuable resources, why do they still need billions in government sponsorship? By your own admission, and that of the papers you linked to, corn ethanol is already at a level that this higher than what they thought it should be at. Why isn't it considered a mature technology at this point? Why does it still need such protection in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, and even new legislation?

And as for the new source B, then we have to consider the whole system costs, including the amount of land used to grow each crop that forms the source you use. Will source B crops be grown on land that is currently used for corn, or will it supplant other crops? How much extra cropland can be utilized, and will the new crop be able to produce enough to make a dent in our oil usage? These are important trade off questions that are being swept under the rug by the people who keep lining up to get the government to enact legislation that will protect their businesses, at the expense of everybody else.

It's not just a physical structure that you can get locked into, you know. There are laws being passed about corn production and ethanol.

They need the funding to continue the infrastructure switchover. Which is the actual lock in. As you nicely dodge again. A car designed to run on 85/100% ethanol can get more miles per gallon than one designed to run on gasoline. Thanks to our lock in on gasoline, we get less. See how the lock in can negatively effect the competitive value of ethanol?

And that's not a strawman, is it? It's a loaded question, intended to make you think about your assumptions.

No, all it is designed to do is score cheap points because any way you answer one you end up looking like an idiot. To quote a certain movie "the only way to win is not to play."

 

[Cuddles]

There are two big problems with ethanol, and neither of them are the inefficiency or the economics. Firstly, there simply isn't enough land. Even if the entire surface of the Earth were covered with corn (or sugar can, or whatever), we still wouldn't be able to replace oil.

Secondly, we need to eat. The world already has enough of a problem with food. Depending on what you count, somewhere from 10% to 30%, possibly more, of the world suffer from nutritional deficiency. The world's population is growing ever faster, and farming land in many places is getting worn out. Even in the developed world food prices are rising, and we no longer have the massive stockpiles of grain that we once did.

Setting aside large areas of arable land for a fuel which can't provide more than a small fraction of our energy requirements is absolute madness. Ethanol can be useful on a small scale, maybe even for a country or two, but it is simply not viable as a major fuel on a global scale.

 

[davefoc]

Compression ratios from 12-15:1.

http://www.swri.edu/4org/d03/engres/spkeng/sprkign/pbeffimp.htm

I read through this article. Unfortunately, the bottom line as regards the mileage available from ethanol is ambiguous.

Note 4 next to the listed mileage says:
Gasoline equivalent mileage based on BTU content

I read that to mean that they used corrected the ethanol mileage figures to account for the lower energy content of ethanol to arrive at their figures that show ethanol with their modified engine producing about the same mileage as gasoline. In other words the actual mileage for the ethanol was much lower than gasoline even using their specially modified engine.

One of the "facts" that is presented in almost all discussions of the use of ethanol as a fuel is that the burning of ethanol produces less energy per gallon than gasoline. Given how often this "fact" is repeated I believe it and would only be moved to change my mind if I was shown something which very specifically addressed this point and provided evidence as to why it isn't true.

On the possible use of ethanol as a legitimate fuel instead of agricultural pork fest it is today:

One of the articles linked to above suggested using ethanol locally strictly for agricultural production fuel needs. This seems like a brilliant idea to me. If ethanol makes sense any place it would be there. And if the technology really produced a benefit (which I am skeptical of) then it could be gradually integrated into other fuel uses. Personally, I doubt that such a completely reasonable idea will be acted on. The principal driver for ethanol from corn right now is political and the idea of turning the process into something legitimate is not likely to happen anytime soon.

 

[tbrdlvr88]

All I see is people bashing Ethanol and claiming that the only ones of us that have good information are those that have a benefit. Have you ever thought that those that are posting have done their homework and researched the subject rather than posting random articles bashing ethanol. I read many posts claiming that we cant show numbers. I am sorry I have not had the time to look for my files. I am getting ready for the Midwest Renewable Energy Fair. However, I thank those that posted some positive results. For those that are bashing ethanol and laughing at our numbers, where are yours? I have not seen a single post on how much energy it takes to produce gasoline. Just a bunch of skeptics saying it is efficient. The truth is whether you want to admit it or not the oil companies do not want us to know the numbers and I know how hard it is to research the productivity of an oil refinery. I believe that ethanol will be here for a long run and those that are complaining will continue to complain until they realize either pay $5 a gallon of gas or $3 a gallon for E85.

 

[davefoc]

All I see is people bashing Ethanol and claiming that the only ones of us that have good information are those that have a benefit. Have you ever thought that those that are posting have done their homework and researched the subject rather than posting random articles bashing ethanol. I read many posts claiming that we cant show numbers. I am sorry I have not had the time to look for my files. I am getting ready for the Midwest Renewable Energy Fair. However, I thank those that posted some positive results. For those that are bashing ethanol and laughing at our numbers, where are yours? I have not seen a single post on how much energy it takes to produce gasoline. Just a bunch of skeptics saying it is efficient. The truth is whether you want to admit it or not the oil companies do not want us to know the numbers and I know how hard it is to research the productivity of an oil refinery. I believe that ethanol will be here for a long run and those that are complaining will continue to complain until they realize either pay $5 a gallon of gas or $3 a gallon for E85.

Most of us ethanol from corn bashers would love to be wrong. The simplest thing to do to prove us wrong is get rid of the subsidy and see if it ethanol from corn is viable.

Or do what was suggested above. Use ethanol locally for farming purposes. Right now, the sense I have of this thing is that people are spending a whole lot of money (a lot of it from the government) to change a gallon of oil into about the energy equivalent of a gallon of ethanol. If in fact that isn't the case and substantial amounts of energy are actually being produced then why don't the farmers use it?

 

[dakotajudo]

The simplest thing to do to prove us wrong is get rid of the subsidy and see if it ethanol from corn is viable.

Let's get rid of all energy subsidies, then - subsidies that keep oil companies viable, as well. Then we can have a fair comparison.

For examples:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/01/18/how-large-are-federal-oil-subsidies/
http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/us-oil-subsidies-need-to-go-003140.php
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/subsidizing-big-oil.html

Or consider, for example, a couple quotes from

These are important trade off questions that are being swept under the rug by the people who keep lining up to get the government to enact legislation that will protect their businesses, at the expense of everybody else.

The third factor stoking the ethanol frenzy is the war in Iraq, which has made energy independence a universal political slogan.

The Iraq War has also been a boon for ADM and other ethanol producers

How much is the Iraq War costing us, and much of that is of direct benefit to the oil producers - by keeping, or at least attempting, to maintain stable, US friendly governments in a rich, oil producing region. What are ADM's profits, compared to, say, Halliburton? Or ExxonMobil?

Yeah, the oil, automotive and defense industries are also lining up to get the government to enact legislation that will protect their businesses at the expense of everybody else. Or should I go on more about, for example, the loopholes that allow SUVs to be treated as commercial vehicles and exempted from automotive fuel economy standards.

So, if there's to be discussion about the viability of ethanol without subsidies, we need to consider all the government subsidies that go into the other energy industries. And those industries have been propped up for quite a bit longer than ethanol.

If in fact that isn't the case and substantial amounts of energy are actually being produced then why don't the farmers use it?

You do realize that most farm machinery runs on diesel, not gasoline?

However, my neighbor works for a seed company; their fleet consists of E85 vehicles. The SDSU Crop Science dept. fleet includes E85 vehicles as well.

Farmers don't have the facilities to convert their grain to fuel, they buy fuel just like anyone else. That means, for farmers to use E85, they need to convince local gasoline stations to sell E85. And they have little control over how the grain is used, once it's sold.

Some farmer, however, have formed cooperatives to develop ethanol and other value-added facilities, that give them some control over the process. See http://www.dakotaethanol.com/ , for example (as opposed to the Verasun plants http://www.verasun.com/Facilities/index.cfm )

Secondly, we need to eat. The world already has enough of a problem with food. Depending on what you count, somewhere from 10% to 30%, possibly more, of the world suffer from nutritional deficiency. The world's population is growing ever faster, and farming land in many places is getting worn out. Even in the developed world food prices are rising, and we no longer have the massive stockpiles of grain that we once did.

To be honest, though, only a small part of that problem is due to food used for ethanol.

The bigger problem is that food has to be transported, and transport costs have risen dramatically with the cost of fuel.

For example, the US Foreign Aid program to aid starving countries is implemented by shipping food from the US to those countries, and not by improving production in those countries. Sure, helps domestic growers, but raises total cost of food for these programs (http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3342/who_does_us_food_aid_benefit/)

Or, another example more local to me - a beef plant in California was forced to recall hamburger (they were abusing animals). This recall affected schools in Sioux Falls, SD - part of the federal lunch program.

Sioux Falls is a major hub for cattle sales and slaughter (I grew up about 70 miles away, and the trip to S.F. to sell 150-200 head of calves each spring was a major event for my family). Yet schools are getting food shipped from half a continent away.

Over the past decade, the US has built up a food supply chain that relied on cheap transportation. Now, that's biting us in the ass - it's not much more trouble, once grain and meat are loaded for shipping, to ship food out overseas (China, for example, is a large market for noodle wheat), than it is to ship domestically.

 

[WildCat]

It depends on the feedstock. What you've probably heard is that producing ethanol from corn is, at best, just barely a break-even proposition. In Brazil, they're making it from sugarcane, and powering their own operations entirely from burning the waste (in fact, they produce a slight surplus in the electricity alone).

That's great, except that sugarcane doesn't grow in 99.9% of the US and we have many more automobiles per capita than Brazil. And in Brazil it quickly depletes the nutrients in the soil, requiring large amounts of fertilizer (energy-intensive) or more rain forest to be cut down for cane fields.

 

[WildCat]

However, I thank those that posted some positive results. For those that are bashing ethanol and laughing at our numbers, where are yours?

I'd like to see ethanol advocates use the ethanol produced from 100 acres of corn to plow, sow, and harvest that same 100 acres the next year. There must also be enough left over to transport it to the ethanol plant, and to power the ethanol plant long enough to convert that 100 acres of corn into ethanol, and transport the ethanol produced to end users.

If it can't do that why should we use one drop of ethanol?

 

[davefoc]

I'd like to see ethanol advocates use the ethanol produced from 100 acres of corn to plow, sow, and harvest that same 100 acres the next year. There must also be enough left over to transport it to the ethanol plant, and to power the ethanol plant long enough to convert that 100 acres of corn into ethanol, and transport the ethanol produced to end users.

If it can't do that why should we use one drop of ethanol?

This sounds perfect to me. If I was in charge (and don't worry I won't be) I would make a project like this an absolute requirement for continued ethanol subsidies.

It turns out that it is very difficult to assess all the issues associated with the energy requirements of producing ethanol and various experts come up with various net energy creation estimates that range from not-very-much to none-at-all. Let's cut through the fog of complicated estimates and do an actual demonstration.

As to the diesel operated farm equipment issue above:
I am well aware that most farm equipment uses diesel fuel. Do you think that if ethanol was all that wonderful, that somebody might be building equipment to use it? Diesel is five bucks a gallon here in California, how much more of an incentive do equipment suppliers need? Let's start by seeing if ethanol makes sense in a local area before we contiue dumping billions of dollars on agribusiness to foist it on the whole country. This just has the smell of a scheme to increase agricultural subsidies while screwing the average American citizen even more than they are screwed now by the regular agricultural subsidies.

 

[davefoc]

One thing that I've wondered about is why the plant material not used in the ethanol production can't be burned for process heat used to produce the ethanol.

Is it because it is all used for animal feed? Or is burning it just too difficult to recover useful energy.

 

[Dymanic]

That's great, except that sugarcane doesn't grow in 99.9% of the US and we have many more automobiles per capita than Brazil. And in Brazil it quickly depletes the nutrients in the soil, requiring large amounts of fertilizer (energy-intensive) or more rain forest to be cut down for cane fields.

Yes, I agree with all of that. I hope it's clear that I wasn't advocating a switch from corn to sugarcane in the US. Where fuel for transportation is concerned, all paths seem ultimately to lead to the same place: the painful conclusion that regardless of what alternative solutions we turn to, making them viable is going to mean making severe changes in the types of vehicles we use to move people and objects from one place to another and in the frequency with which we find a need to do that. If you're relying primarily on real-time solar, stuff just isn't going to move around as much, or as far, or as fast. Cellulosic ethanol looks to me like our best bet in the long run (once the technology is ready) but not even that will permit a continuation of the ghastly excesses we have become accustomed to.

 

[Jimbo07]

I'd like to see ethanol advocates use the ethanol produced from 100 acres of corn to plow, sow, and harvest that same 100 acres the next year. There must also be enough left over to transport it to the ethanol plant, and to power the ethanol plant long enough to convert that 100 acres of corn into ethanol, and transport the ethanol produced to end users.

I'd like to see the same thing for petroleum, hydrogen, in fact, any storable/transportable energy source. All possible, non-stored (eg. ethanol: solar) inputs provided by the end product. You'd also have to compare apples-to-apples: new plants? mid-life plants?

Of course, the system doesn't work that way. That's why they do Life Cycle Analysis studies.

ETA: davefoc, yes some plants do try to use the separated stock as feed. An ethanol plant and cattle operation could gain much by being co-located.

 

[Hindmost]

All I see is people bashing Ethanol and claiming that the only ones of us that have good information are those that have a benefit. Have you ever thought that those that are posting have done their homework and researched the subject rather than posting random articles bashing ethanol. I read many posts claiming that we cant show numbers. I am sorry I have not had the time to look for my files. I am getting ready for the Midwest Renewable Energy Fair. However, I thank those that posted some positive results. For those that are bashing ethanol and laughing at our numbers, where are yours? I have not seen a single post on how much energy it takes to produce gasoline. Just a bunch of skeptics saying it is efficient. The truth is whether you want to admit it or not the oil companies do not want us to know the numbers and I know how hard it is to research the productivity of an oil refinery. I believe that ethanol will be here for a long run and those that are complaining will continue to complain until they realize either pay $5 a gallon of gas or $3 a gallon for E85.

People here aren't bashing ethanol. They just understand the energy balance and realize that corn based ethanol is not going to solve any problems. Even Brasil's sugar based system is not sustainable long term. And Brasil actually produces less ethanol than the US.

Here's a link that give some information that will help with energy balance and various energy sources. This gives you the information you requested. You should note that corn based ethanol is very poor from an energy balance viewpoint.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3810

http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2006/04/08/energy-balance-for-ethanol-better-than-for-gasoline/

I have been doing my homework on energy for 30 years. I believe you should start with the first two laws of thermodynamics. It will help you understand the problems with any biofuel.

glenn

 

[technoextreme]

I have been doing my homework on energy for 30 years. I believe you should start with the first two laws of thermodynamics. It will help you understand the problems with any biofuel.

glenn

No you haven't. You can get more energy from ethanol by using a process in which the maximum efficiency isn't regulated by the Carnot cycle.

 

[Hindmost]

No you haven't. You can get more energy from ethanol by using a process in which the maximum efficiency isn't regulated by the Carnot cycle.

Ethanol production doesn't violate thermo. The carnot cycle is for a heat engine. What connection are you trying to make?

glenn

 

[trvlr2]

No you haven't. You can get more energy from ethanol by using a process in which the maximum efficiency isn't regulated by the Carnot cycle.

Would you elaborate on your statement please?

 

[technoextreme]

Ethanol production doesn't violate thermo. The carnot cycle is for a heat engine. What connection are you trying to make?

glenn

I thought ICE's efficiency was regulated by the Carnot cycle.

Would you elaborate on your statement please?

Actually I just gave it away with my question. One way we can reduce the amount of ethanol we need is to use something whose efficiency isn't regulated by the carnot cycle.

 

[Hindmost]

I thought ICE's efficiency was regulated by the Carnot cycle.

Actually I just gave it away with my question. One way we can reduce the amount of ethanol we need is to use something whose efficiency isn't regulated by the carnot cycle.

The carnot cycle is the ultimate efficiency a heat engine can achieve...turning heat into mechanical energy. Not really related to ethanol production.

Thermo tells us that any energy production is net negative. Oil is "free" energy because it took millions of years of solar, chemical and geothermal energy to produce. The energy we get out of the oil today is less than all the energy that went into it...can't get past entropy-ever.

With ethanol, the energy balance is based on the sun and chemical energy in the soil as "free" energy. If ethanol is based on corn, the net energy "gain"--not including the sun/soil--is marginal...at most a 20% gain or so. If sugar cane is used, the net gain is much higher...essentially 300%. This is the reason for Brasil's success. But they still only produce about 5 billion gallons a year...less than the US production. They are exhausting the soil and it isn't something sustainable. It is still a good idea, but not a panacea.

If you read my links, the energy "gain" from oil was 100 to 1 many years ago and it is about 10 to 1 now. Much more positive than any ethanol production. Essentially:we get 10 joules out for every 1 joule we put in. With ethanol, we get about 1.2 joules out for every 1 joule we put in--if corn is used. Some calcs have this as negative for corn base ethanol. This is why subsidies are needed and why no one has done this in the past and made a bunch of money since it is a non-starter from an energy balance standpoint.

In the US, switchgrass grows everywhere and has a theoretical yield of about 400%, based on the cellulose content in the grass--again free sun and soil. However, there is no commercially available enzyme to break the cellulose into sugar so it can be converted to ethanol. A breakthrough would make this a viable fuel.

30 billion barrels of oil use each year in the world isn't going to be replaced by ethanol. The sun just can't "grow" that much energy each year. This is the inherent problem with biofuels. Certain technologies have merit, but they are not going to change the thermo energy balance stuff.

No free lunch.

And I really have studied energy for 30 years.

glenn