Ethanol: It takes more energy to make it than you get back.

In fact it takes 30% more energy to make a given unit of ethanol than you get when it is burned. How is this saving oil? Maybe this might be why this administration is pushing ethanol, because it does in fact use more oil?



Popular Science October 2005

That's why all the pols love ethanol.

It's a big bone thrown to the farmers and ethanol producers (who also happen to be big oil) and it makes the sheeple think the government is actually doing something to make the air cleaner. It's a win/win situation for all involved, except the consumer, of course.

to build an ethanol plant down the road are big oil?

What a bummer.

who used apple skins to make alcohol fuel that powered go-carts. If ONE junior high school student can be so innovative about making fuel from organic waste, then surely leagues of scientists working together can solve the problem of making production efficient.

Hey folks.....you really should research this before you start threads like this. My husband just bought a still so he can make ethanol. When he starts a self employment venture.....he researches it totally. Ethanol will save you money!!!!

He will use lots of different throw away items to make our fuel, Grapes from the Oregon Vineyards, cracked corn and even grass clippings.

To find out more about making ethanol I suggest you start with these websites:

http://www.revenoor.com/GenWebPage.ihtml?formID=1

http://www.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/makingethanol.htm

http://www.dieselsecret.com/index.htm

are all the Ethanol blend gasolines in the midwest, higher octane than the non-ethanol gasoline?
If Ethanol did not provide the power, why does INDY race cars use Ethanol?

The cost is as high as your little poster says because it still is not being produced in mass volumes, that cost would come down as production increases.

Here are a couple of links to check your facts
http://www.iowacorn.org/ethanol/documents/energy_balance_001.pdf
http://www.iowacorn.org/ethanol/ethanol_3.html


The estimated energy efficiencies are for gasoline (80.5
percent), diesel fuel (84.3 percent), LPG (98.9 percent), natural gas (94 percent), coal (98
percent), electricity (39.6 percent), and transmission loss (1.087 percent). After adjusting
the energy inputs by these energy efficiencies, the total estimated energy required to
produce a bushel of corn in 2001 was 49,753 Btu.

One of the reasons that Indy Cars are much larger and heavier than F-1 is that they require fuel tanks that are one-fourth large to go the same distance. While the octane rating of ethyl alcohol is higher than unleaded pump gasoline, the actual energy released per gallon of ethanol is only 75% that of gasoline.

The requirement to carry more fuel also makes cars heavier, which decreases performance and increases fuel consumption - a vicious cycle.

The original reason that Indy Cars burned ethanol was that the octane of pump gasoline then available was lower, and special blended racing fuels were more expensive than alcohol. World War II brought the introduction of lead to gasoline, which boosted octane, and allowed higher compression ratios and more horsepower. Unleaded racing gas was introduced in the 1970s, but this remains expensive. Indy cars continue to burn "alkie" fuel because it's traditional and due to pressure from big agribusiness interests that, understandably, see Indy as a valuable marketing tool.

One can also see why the gasoline retailing industry would welcome the wider introduction of E85 - the cost per gallon being equal, revenues would be 25% higher. It's another way to rip-off the consumer under the guise of clean air and domestic energy sufficiency.

Here are some figures:

The energy content of ethanol is 83,333 British thermal units (Btu) per gallon. (The energy content of a gallon of gasoline ranges from about 109,000 to 125,000 Btu. The average is about 114,000 Btu. The energy content of diesel fuel is between about 128,000 and 130,000 Btu per gallon (lower heating value).

If an alternate fuel has fewer Btus, your vehicle won't go as far (generally speaking).

The ethyl alcohol manufacturers are pushing E85, a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% unleaded gasoline for use in Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFVs). E85 is classified as an Alternative Fuel by the U.S. Department of Energy.

The average energy content of E85 is 94,190 British thermal units (Btu) per gallon, assuming an average year-round ethanol content of 74 percent.

Octane has to do with the burning characteristics, i.e., anti knock. in other words, high octane fuels burn slower.

No matter how much ethanol you produce, the energy cost per a given unit will always be higher than what you get back.

The indy car engines are designed from the ground up to burn ethanol. BTW, those pretty flames coming out the stacks represents wasted energy because ethanol has such a high octane value it is still burning when it leaves the engine.

not a measure of it's energy density. Gasoline is more powerful than Ethanol; E85, for instance incurs about a 15 percent horsepower penalty when used in an engine that was designed for Gasoline. This problem can be overcome because Ethanol has a higher octane rating, allowing for higher compression ratios, but the engine must be specifically built to take advantage of Ethanol's higher octane.

Indy cars run on Methanol, not Ethanol. Methanol also has a much higher octane rating than Gasoline, but similar to Ethanol it has a lower energy density. To compensate for this, Indy car racing engines have a 16 to 1 compression ratio.

The original reason Indy racing chose Methanol was because it has a much higher flash point than gasoline. They were trying to mitigate fire hazard, not make their cars go faster. The flash point (Fahrenheit) of Gasoline is minus 45 degrees. The flash point of Methanol is something like 52 degrees. Big difference.

in terms iof fertilizer (which is made of petroleum products) and the energy of the machines used to harvest and process it. So in terms of total energy, it costs more to make ethanol than you actually get from burning it.

Is this MORE energy from fossil-based fuel, or from renewable sources? If predominantly from the latter, we're talking about stuff that's otherwise largely burned or thrown away as a nuisance.

pnorman

fertilizer, transportation of seed, planting, weed control, harvesting, transporting of harvested crop, energy required for fermenting. Every step of the way requires fossil energy.
Ethanol is subsidized because it is not energy efficient. In other words, it cannot pay for its self.

And I had forgotten just how hi-tech (and probably over-engineered) corn really is. But there are almost certainly other "waste products" that might be used to good effect. It might not cut down gasoline consumption, but it could still reduce overall crude oil consumption.

pnorman

Thanks for the valuable information

http://www.hytechpro.com

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

or other biomass.

Check here for the energy comparisons.

<http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html>

"Because petrochemicals are key components to much more than just the gas in your car. As geologist Dale Allen Pfeiffer points out in his article entitled, "Eating Fossil Fuels," approximately 10 calories of fossil fuels are required to produce every 1 calorie of food eaten in the US."

"What About Biofuels Such
as Ethanol and Biodiesel?"

Biofuels such as biodiesel, ethanol, methanol etc. are great, but only in small doses. Biofuels are all grown with massive fossil fuel inputs (pesticides and fertilizers) and suffer from horribly low, sometimes negative, EROEIs. The production of ethanol, for instance, requires six units of energy to produce just one. That means it consumes more energy than it produces and thus will only serve to compound our energy deficit.

In addition, there is the problem of where to grow the stuff, as we are rapidly running out of arable land on which to grow food, let alone fuel. This is no small problem as the amount of land it takes to grow even a small amount of biofuel is quite staggering. As journalist Lee Dye points out in a July 2004 article entitled "Old Policies Make Shift From Foreign Oil Tough:"

. . . relying on corn for our future energy needs would
devastate the nation's food production. It takes 11 acres to
grow enough corn to fuel one automobile with ethanol for
10,000 miles, or about a year's driving, Pimentel says. That's
the amount of land needed to feed seven persons for the
same period of time.

And if we decided to power all of our automobiles with
ethanol, we would need to cover 97 percent of our land with
corn, he adds.

Biodiesel is considerably better than ethanol, but with an EROEI of three, it still doesn't compare to oil, which has had an EROEI of about 30.

FROM:
<http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html#anchor_92>

bookmarked for later reading.

We should continue to develop this technology, instead of poo-pooing the current state of the art because it "takes more energy than it gives back".

But you're probably right. Stop it right now. Fahgeddabout it.

Then when the "Mad Max Moment" is upon us, THEN will be the time to say "Hey, anybody remember that alcohol stuff they were playing with back at the turn of the century?

I see in the small print that your chart came from Cornel and UC Berkely. Are you aware that the money for a LOT of University research comes from Big Business? Follow the Money.

We drove past row after row of corn going from Portland to Salem. Husband says we can grind up the stalks and use them to make fuel.

You have a bunch of ground-up cornstalks.
You can burn them, ferment them, or digets them into biogas, anyway you slice it, it's still energy.

What usually happens, though, is that they get tilled back into the soil, and add their energy that way.

you don't even need the corn.....just grind the corn stalk, ferment the mash and make alcohol.....and that will make ethanol.

My husband knows what the hell he is talking about.

He has taken classes about how to make ethanol, studied it on line and on books, talked with experts.

Its okay for the environment. It emits Carbon Dioxide! Ethanol is renewable. ONce crude oil is burnt off ..it's done. You can make ethanol from hay, straw, yams, potatoes and even carrots.....any fruit....even ROTTEN FRUIT!!

Get a brain - study this, it will work.

OK, so between the steps of fermenting the "mash" and making alcohol, what goes on there?

Distillation, right? and what do you need to distill the stuff?
Heat, right? What would be a fair source of heat, one that is usually wasted?

Cornstalks. The cobs, too.

I'm glad your husband has studied this. In fact, I'm delirious.

I have studied it, too, to the degree that I could very likely still build a column still from memory and make a run.

I remember how to brew beer and make wine, too, so I know what goes on in fermentation.

The Pimental study appears to be an outlier, and seems to be oft quoted by those debunking ethanol.

Most studies indicate an EPR of 1.3 to 1.8 for corn ethanol. Not taking credit for coproducts, EPR is approximately 1.0. Therefore, corn ethanol is not an energy source. Considering, however, that the only proven way to produce hydrogen at scale has an EPR of 0.2, it seems that corn ethanol has promise as an energy carrier.

The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update / AER-813
United States Department of Agriculture - July 2002

http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/aer-813.pdf

The above publication indicates that the EROEI (EPR) of corn ethanol is 1.34 to 1.85 dependant on how the value of coproducts (DDGS, germ, etc.) is accounted for. What I found interesting was Table 6 that indicates 2/3's of the energy consumed is in the conversion process. This indicates opportunities for utilizing co-generation or renewables (wind) for some of this process energy.

Just east of Ames, IA an ethanol processing plant is being built. In the brief for the project they advertised how the new plant will use the same coal supply delivered to the Ames, IA municipal electric plant 4 mi. to the west, thus resulting in savings. With co-generation, this plant could have been located such that waste heat from the coal fired electric plant could have been utilized by the ethanol process. In addition, the Ames power plant burns local garbage, therefore waste material from the ethanol process could be burned (resource recovered, as they call it).

Again, an energy carrier, with excellent energy density, but not a source.

Tell that to Brazil. 40% of all cars and trucks built there this year will have gas tanks modified to accomodate ethanol.

Saw an excellent program on National Geographic about sugar. Brazil grows more sugar than anyone, and they distill part of that to be self sufficient energy wise. They can get a lot more energy from sugar than from corn or other biomass. Their fuel cost for ethanol is currently .99 cents per gallon. We grow a lot of sugar beets in California FWIW.

The energy does not have to be carbon based. It could come from windmills or geothermal or any other clean source.

Because petroleum is still relatively cheap and not many alternative energy sources have been put on line, they still use oil.

In the Chemical and Engineering News (from the American Chemical Society) Sept 12 issue, there was a good article about the debate.
Ted Patzek of Berkeley and David Pimentel of Cornell were the primary critic of the use of ethanol. See Natural Resources Research (2005, 14, 65) for the recent article.

Critics of the critics say these two are using information from the 1970s and that modern technology has made ethanol a better alternative. They also point out that Patzek is a member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Of coursem the ethanol backers come from agribusiness backgrounds.

In March, Argonne National Lab published that ethanol makes 35% more energy that is uses.

Ther entire article can be found here:
http://pubs.acs.org/isubscribe/journals/cen/83/i37/html/8337gov1.html

It does not really end the debate which is sad because science should just stand objectively as is and not be biased by the scientist.

I am hoping to get some chemical engineering students to design an Ethanol production facility that runs on ethanol. Accounting for ethanol equivalent energy usage in bringing the resources to the process, we should be able to see how much feasible it is.

Greg

Could you post the title of the article so I could Google an alternative path.

Chemcial and Engineering News
Government & Policy
September 12, 2005
Volume 83, Number 37
pp. 28-30

Ethanol Wins Big In Energy Policy
But critics continue to question the value of producing the corn-derived biofuel

Glenn Hess, C&EN Washington

"'America is addicted to foreign oil, and the first step toward recovery is to admit there's a problem," says Robert Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), which represents about 95% of U.S. ethanol producers. "This legislation does that and more." The U.S. spends $300 million a day for imported oil, an annual cost of more than $100 billion. The energy bill's renewable fuels standard alone will reduce foreign oil dependency by 5%, according to Dinneen."
...
"Most recently, Patzek and Cornell University ecology professor emeritus David Pimentel published a study in the scientific journal Natural Resources Research (2005, 14, 65) that also found that turning corn and other crops into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol produces. The study concluded that making a gallon of ethanol from corn requires about 29% more energy from fossil fuels than a gallon of ethanol can provide. The researchers found that producing ethanol from switch grass requires 45% more energy than the ethanol provides, and ethanol from wood biomass requires 57% more energy. Among the costs considered in measuring energy input were the production of pesticides and fertilizer, the operation of farm machinery and irrigation, and the fermentation and distillation of ethanol from the water mix."
...
"Ethanol advocates maintain that Patzek and Pimentel's research is based on flawed data about obsolete farming and production practices, and they suggest the university professors may have a hidden political agenda. "This new study is just the latest regurgitation of Pimentel's research from 1979," says Ron Lamberty, vice president of market development for the South Dakota-based American Coalition for Ethanol. "Twenty years ago their information may have been correct, but today it couldn't be more wrong.""
--snip--

These are just some paragraphs from the article. Hope it helps.

Greg

most of them seem slightly positive, and more importantly from a liquid fuel standpoint the ethanol produced exceeds the demands of the farm equipment by several times. The additional energy needed in the ethanol process can then come from sources other than oil which are less scarce like coal, nuclear or green sources.

Regardless of whether any ethanol process is slightly positive or negative people need to think about the massive amount of land required to completely replace gasoline as it is used now. Unless annual conservation out paces population growth either we are going to be royally screwed or wealth inequity in society will be much more pronounced.

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html

:kick:

use ethanol to make more ethanol?

Why use oil beyond the first batch?

They count the workmen's lunch as an energy input necessary to make the fuel (I'm not making this up). They count new farm equipment, as if the farmer never had a tractor before. The Berkley guy gets money from oil companies, 'nuff said. The Department of Agriculture says that ethanol gives about 30% more energy than it takes to make. I use biodiesel myself, because it gives over 3 times the energy back that you put into making/growing it. To me, the bottom line is we don't have to invade Iowa.

www.biodiesel.org

Bill

all the way to the bank. that still cost $1400 and within 1 year it will pay the cost of the still.

And.........the government will give us a tax credit (.52 a gallon) for using and a tax make it and sell it (.52 a gallon)

you want more information....contact me and I'll get you intouch with husband who's the expert. You want a still? It's the only way to fire up your car!

And even more, we have known about this renewable resource for years. Just get your hands on Mother Earth News back in the 70's.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html

The above article at the National Geographic website talks about new technology involving spray-on plastic nanotech solar cells that could improve the ability to turn the sun's energy into electricity from currently 6% up to 30%, a five-fold increase. The article suggests that in the future, we could develop solar farms that would take care of 100% of our energy needs on earth. This energy would even be available on cloudy days because this particular breakthrough involves conversion of ultra violet and infra red waves into electricity.

I've read other articles involving new compounds that could enhance efficiency of solar cells up to 75% and that there are now theories regarding new nanocomposite materials that could even be made into transparent thin films for use over car windshields and office building windows.

Eventually, we will have solar technology of up to 90% efficiency or more. It's just a matter of time. But why wait another century? We need leadership in funding and developing a major technology that will free us from fossil fuels forever. We need it now. Instead, the labs trying to develop this technology are begging for funding and are entering into funding agreements with private industry. Why not have a world-based international center funded by the entire world, with the best minds, to develop something that will revolutionize life on earth? It would also help to supply clean drinking water to a world where water will become the next major shrinking resource.

http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/news/Ethanol-Generates-Energy/

Ethanol Generates More Energy Than It Takes To Produce, Study Shows

Apr 26, 2004 10:22 AM
University of Nebraska


Ethanol provides 30-40% more energy than it takes to produce, according to a recent University of Nebraska study on the fuel’s net energy balance. The study, conducted by scientist Dan Walters, confirms earlier USDA research that shows ethanol has a positive net energy balance.

Studies are often cited that show ethanol production uses more energy than it produces, Walters says. But those studies are decades old and don’t take into consideration changes in agriculture and the ethanol production process, he adds.

The Nebraska study’s methodology assesses the amount of fossil fuel required to grow, transport and convert corn into ethanol. The amount of energy required to blend ethanol with gasoline and transport it to the pump is also considered.

Technological advances in ethanol conversion and plant efficiency are responsible in part for the positive net energy balance, Walters says, pointing to the fact that a bushel of corn now produces at least 2.7 gal. of ethanol, where as a bushel only produced 2.5 gal. in 1990. Ethanol co-products also factor into the equation because additional energy would be needed to make these products if they weren’t being made during the ethanol conversion process.

(more)

while the theory of using renewable energy is nice,it isn't real practical. The head of the plant said in order to provide enough corn to fuel America, every acre available for farming in the entire country would have to grow corn.

Basically,we could drive but wouldn't have a hell of a lot to eat.

Wind power,mass transportation, and hybrids are the key to cutting foreign oil dependency,imho.

for ethanol production. Actually, hemp can produce a lot of ethanol, and can be grown on land unsuitable for food production.

BTW, it takes 17 times the land to grow a pound of meat protein as it does to grow a pound of veggie protein. What were you saying about not enough land?

Bill

not against ethanol, I just don't think that alone will ever get us too far away from our ME oil addiction.

Why the belligerent tone, I have said nothing aggressive or hateful?

Peace

that wasn't my intention. I think I'm trying to help....

Bill

Yup.

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2005/05/10_ap_ethanol/

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2003/01/16_khoom_ethanol/
(note, this one came in 2003... cuttin' subsidies to ethanol farmers... nice.)

http://www.cornandsoybeandigest.com/news/MN-double-ethanol-092804/

http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2005/05/09/daily23.html

to be able to run on it and gas. Every gas station has ethanol pumps and the alcohol costs a fraction of gas. Alcohol cobustion is considered carbon neutral - can't remember why. Saw something about this on teevee the other day. Seems to be working for them. Distilling alcohol not nearly as energy intensive or polluting as petro-refineries.

should make it suspect as a viable energy source.
It is a fact that ethanol has less energy than gasoline. When produced from corn, every energy source that goes into it needs to be counted, from the fuel used in transportation to fertilizer, planting, tilling to the energy needed to ferment the mash. Ethanol from corn is a losing proposition.
Why is ethanol so heavily subsidized?
Why isn't ethanol used as an energy source in the fermenting process? Why isn't ethanol used in the farmers gasoline powered tractors?
In south America sugar cane is used instead of corn. That is a different story.
They grow hundreds of millions of dollars of sugar beats around here, yet they still push corn. Why?