Grain-Derived Ethanol: The Emperor’s New Clothes

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/03/grain-derived-ethanol-emperors-new.html

This post put to rest the propaganda being put out by others on this board about ethanol. Ethanol is not the alternative every source that will eliminate this country's need to oil!!

However, the truth behind grain-derived ethanol is masked behind half-truths and myths promoted by a very powerful lobby on behalf of agricultural and ethanol interests. This is one of the biggest scams in operation today, enabled by politicians who fear the political power of that powerful lobby. I will dissect some of the claims in this essay, and show why grain-based ethanol is a huge misallocation of resources.

First, what do I know about ethanol? I grew up on a farm, and my family still farms. I wanted to help farmers and the environment, so I went to a graduate school where I could be a part of a research project that was doing just that. My research group in graduate school was working on the conversion of biomass (aka cellulose) into ethanol. Biomass conversion via microorganisms was the topic of my thesis. After graduation, I worked several years for a chemical company in various roles (R&D, process, production) supporting propanol and butanol production. I currently work for a major oil company, and I try to stay current on developments in the alternative energy fields. In 2005, my company sent me to the state legislature to provide expert testimony regarding a proposed ethanol mandate for my state. My testimony generated a lot of discussion, and I was called back to the stand ten times to answer questions. Despite some very contentious questioning, nobody rebutted the arguments that I made, which is the gist of this essay.

At this point, it is important to point out a bit of accounting sleight of hand utilized by Shapouri, as well as a number of others when calculating EROI for ethanol. Note that the actual energy inputs into the process according to him are 77,228 BTU per gallon of ethanol produced (using the higher heating value, or HHV). The BTU value given for a gallon of ethanol (HHV) was 83,961. Therefore, excluding co-product credits, the EROI would appear to be 83,961/77,228, or 1.09. He includes a co-product credit of 14,372 BTU, which should raise the overall value of the BTU products to (83,961 + 14,372), or 98,333 BTUs. This would imply an EROI of 98,333/77,228, or 1.27. However, Shapouri, like many ethanol advocates, performs a completely illegitimate accounting trick to exaggerate the EROI of ethanol. He uses the 14,372 co-product credit to reduce the energy input of 77,228 and assumes an energy input of just 62,856 BTUs/gallon. Since the co-products are not actually used as inputs in the process, this is invalid. But that is not the most serious issue. When he uses the co-product credit to offset the energy input, it should be removed from the product side. Shapouri includes it on both sides of the equation – reduce the inputs with the co-product credit, and increase the BTU output with the co-product credit.

Real easy to put down any alternative to oil as it has always been done and keep using the black gold. Every time someone says that Ethanol isn't the answer or Hydrogen isn't the answer they never provide a solution.

I would like to see what those who decree that these alternatives are not the answer provide some answers of their own.

there isn't a solution? It might
be worthwhile to consider that
possibility.

The IndyCar Series, which has been recognized for its technical leadership in automobile racing, is now the motorsports leader in renewable and environmentally responsible fuel produced in America.

The Honda V-8 engines in 2006 are powered by an ethanol/methanol blend (methanol had been the fuel since the Indy Racing League’s inception). In 2007, 100 percent fuel-grade ethanol will flow through the systems.

The long-term message is clear: If 650-horsepower IndyCar Series cars that cover the length of a football field in 1 second can run safely and effectively on ethanol, so can your automobile with reduced emissions as an add-on benefit.

Ethanol – C2H5OH – has been made since ancient times by the fermentation of sugars. Zymase, an enzyme from yeast, changes the simple sugars into ethanol and carbon dioxide. All beverage alcohol and more than half of industrial ethanol is still made by this process. Aside from fuel – internal combustion engines and alcohol – ethanol is used in making perfume and paints and lacquer.

Fast facts:
● By the end of the year, the Midwest-centered ethanol industry is expected to have the capacity to produce 4 billion gallons of ethanol annually – up 109 percent from five years ago but a fraction of the 140 billion gallons of gasoline consumed. By 2012, capacity is expected to reach 7.5 billion as more processing plants spring up to meet the projected need.

● Benefits to farmers also would be realized. One ethanol plant in Minnesota processes 11,750 bushels of grain a day to produce 33,990 gallons of ethanol and 95 tons of high-protein livestock feed.

● According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ethanol’s high oxygen content reduces emissions of ozone-depleting carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide.

● Ethanol is a drinkable alcohol, the active ingredient in beer, wine and spirits. But fuel-grade ethanol is denatured with gasoline (about 3-5 percent), so ingesting the racing variety would be hazardous to the health of anyone taking a swig.

● Henry Ford’s Model T Ford was built to run on ethanol. Its high octane rating delivers strong performance by helping engines resist detonation so they can run higher compression ratios.

● A car driven by Leon Duray was fueled by ethyl (grain) alcohol and started third in the 1927 Indianapolis 500. Ethanol is a close chemical cousin to methanol, which has powered Indy-style cars since the 1960s but is made from nonrenewable natural gas.
http://www.indycar.com/tech/ethanol.php

Ethanol takes as much energy from another source as you get out of it, maybe even less!! Its not a benefit to farmers either.

You didn't read the whole article I posted by your quick response. My post lays to rest most of the propagando represented by the ethanol supporters..

But ask yourself, as other are doing now, what if in 20 years or so ethanol turns out not to be an answer, then where does that leave us??

everyy thermal conversion process to make electricity throws
two-thirds of the energy out the window.

electricity, EROEI of 0.33

lots of people are thinking of using electric cars.

And, as you point out, there are losses.

Interesting problem, isn't it?

The airplane has lost its wheels.

There isn't any way to replace the wheels.

We are running out of fuel.

There isn't any way to replace the fuel.

Pretty soon now we have to land.

The world's worst pilot is flying the plane.

And my point exactly.

Why should we even consider the possibility that there is no solution?

What action item would that involve? Distributing cyanide to the population of the planet?

I am not optimistic about any solution but I think there are many solutions that have merit.


I'm agnostic as to whether ethanol is such a solution, but I suspect that depending on geography and weather, there are definitely regions in which it can be a positive force. I would not expect that it will be a general, or nearly general solution to the problem of convenient liquid fuels, but I'm quite sure that it could be used to say, run farm equipment such as tractors.

Right now ethanol production produces around 0.2 exajoules of energy per year, or less than 0.2% of US energy demand. However the industrial sector, including the agricultural industry, as of a few years ago, used 5.5 exajoules of oil to operate. Thus if all the ethanol were used essentially where it is produced, on the farm, it would account for 4% of the industrial liquid fuels used by industry and farms. This is small, but not insignificant. Local use of locally generated fuel reduces the economic and environmental costs associated with transportation of the fuel.

If cellulosic ethanol meets it's promise, it may even further assure the continued operations of some types of farming equipment.

I also think it is not necessarily useful to pretend that distillation must always use virgin energy. One of the big underutilized conservation methods in this country is co-generation. It may prove very possible to operate reduced pressure stills with the waste heat of other operations, like power plants. The Gordon Evans power plant in Sedgewick Kansas (one I located by googling for Kansas power plants) produces about 125 Megawatts of electricity, meaning that it rejects into the atmosphere about 250 megawatts of waste heat. In theory at least, that heat could be recovered in distillation operations.

It may prove that ethanol is a big fuel in Kansas, and not such a big fuel in New Jersey. That's fine. It's something. I think we err to the extent we insist that one size must fit all.

I think it is absurd - unless one is suicidal - to prepare for the option that there is no solution. The outcome of there being no solution and doing nothing is pretty much the same, so it is best to explore whatever options give us some chance.

Have you read Nature's End ... ?

The subplot is about a charismatic mystic who is working to get an international law passed that will require all people participate in a population-reduction lottery. The losers -- 33.3% -- must commit suicide.

Quite an interesting book. It's about 15 years old now, but it holds up well.

--p!

The losers are, as usual, the poor.

The question will come down ultimately to what fraction of humanity is poor. It behooves me to point out that we live in the poorest country on earth: The country with the least ability to pay for what it needs, the country with the greatest financial debt, both public and private, that humanity has ever known.

My guess is that many in the United States do not realize that their country is sinking into the third world status. We have all the elements: Tremendous debt, a government run by and for the rich in completely corrupt circumstances, destruction of the middle class, a controlled press that basically directs our attention at invented enemies while repeating propaganda, environmental degradation, a poorly educated public, a collapsing infrastructure, access to basic services only through the avenue of bribery, diminishing resources, civic indifference, a government that prints money to pay debts, etc, etc.

We have long operated under the assumption that we, the citizens of the United States, are somehow immune from what happens in the third world, but the events in New Orleans were the opening salvo in the graphic demonstration of our increasingly third world status. As I understand it, little has been done to fix the devastation of the last hurricane season, and I think that it is a reflection of our weakness.

Thus we are lying to ourselves in saying it won't happen here, a spiral of death connected with the collapse of the earth's carrying capacity. The diminishing of the carrying capacity is a fact. The only thing left in our control is how we manage the decline and here, in the United States, there seems to be no understanding even of the magnitude of the problem. There are, I think, a lot more of these death lottery tickets out there than is generally realized. We will have more poor people that we have recognized.

Therefore we must not lie to ourselves. We need to try what we can.

Returning to the subject at hand, personally I would be thrilled to see ethanol work to reduce any of the pressure that it can relieve. I don't think it will do a tremendous amount, but if it does something, so much the better.

The author of the article quoted in the opening post of this thread suggests an interesting test that might elucidate the entire matter which has been the subject of so much "debate by internet link" here. He suggests that ethanol farms be operated as closed systems. This is a damn good idea for testing the assumptions. It should be a relatively easy matter to set up a series of farms in various locations that operate as closed systems. To wit: They operate the farm on ethanol, including any irrigation systems, the farm machinery as well as operating the stills on ethanol or waste biomass and the transport of any surplus, and manufacture their own fertilizers from indigenous sources. (It should be easy to even set up the nitrogen fixing machinery for fertilizer manufacturing on such a farm for the purposes of the test, nitrogen fixation isn't exactly rocket science anymore.)

The performance of these test farms would give real experimental insight to the question of the EROEI of the ethanol industry. Of course such research would involve the participation of rational government. We don't have that here anymore.

As I say, I'm personally agnostic on the issue. I don't know who to believe.

Instead I'm saying there may be no economically feasible replacements for cheap oil in many industrial sectors. Certain industries as we now know them, such as the personal automobile industry or the airline industry, may no longer be viable without cheap oil. The soutions to these problem might not involve alternative fuels, ethanol replacing gasoline for example, but a restructuring of our society. People will survive, but maybe they'll have to do it without personal automobiles and inexpensive airline flights.

The question still remains what is a viable alternative to oil and according to many people in the know, including the US Army, there is no viable alternative.. So I cannot answer your question. Besides, who says there has to be an alternative to oil??

I would suggest reading Powerdown by Heinberg for starters..

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3411&print=1

Another bad side effect of growing corn..

So what’s the catch? Corn farming is rough on the environment. Soil erosion due to wind and water is rampant. Fertilizer and pesticide runoffs produce algae blooms that result in “dead zones,” including one in the Gulf of Mexico that is so polluted it cannot support aquatic life.

So you are familiar with the fact tht ethanol making facilities use coal and natural gas. Are you also familiar with those same plants ask for relief on enviromental controls ofr pollution?? Seem that ethanol is not reall that clean after all..

and more precisely the thermodynamics of fractionating an 8%EtOH-92% H2O mixture into azeotropic EtOH (about 90% EtOH, balance H2O) and H2O, and then separating the 90% EtOH from the H2O.

Rapier, and Pimentel/Patzek postulate an energy intensive distillation. Shuler and Kargi (Bioprocess Engineering) postulate a reaction sequence of the slower, yeast catalyzed fermentation and a membrane separation.

Unlike Rapier, I am not a farmboy. But I am a chemical engineer, and I have worked in coal to liquid fuels, nuclear power, solar energy, fuel cells, batteries, and industrial electrochemistry. And I have been an environmental and worker safety cop. IMHO - if you break out of the petroleum refinery engineering paradigm (which we chemical engineers had drilled into our heads) of high pressure, high temperature, thermal processes -- and look at the "biotech" industries (wine making, brewing, distilling booze, pharmaceuticals, food processing, soy bean fermentation), your energy balance is much more favorable.

BTW - realize, everybody is a special interest, a vested interest, and a pressure group --- everybody.

I heard this from the Republican congressman who occassionally stands up with the thirtysomething or other group. How's that for vague? Basically, I don't recall whom. But what I do remember was his discussion of the viability of this subject. And it was not pretty. And I'm sure it's not as simple as it seems. But maybe it's crop rotation. Maybe it's a combination of things. The bottom line was, ethanol production would cost us topsoil that we simply cannot afford to lose.

On top of which was that we also would lose a large percentage of farmland that would otherwise go toward food production. That may have been the biggest point in the discussion.

I'm throwing this out there. Correct me if I have this wrong.

It seems to me soil errodes faster if something is not growing on it. Plants keep the soil together so the wind can't blow it away.

Corn is not going to be the feedstock of ethanol forever. The economics of switchgrass is much more favorable and this is just around the corner.

We can use money that would have gone to Arab dictators and the money we pay US farmers NOT TO GROW CORN to have them grow corn for our fuel. It's a good interim step. It's temporary. Eventually fushion is going to be worked out and we'll be using that. In the mean time we have to stop burning oil and ethanol is a very feasable replacement in the short term.

player for replacing gasoline, guess who will be the main distributors??? You guessed it...the oil companies just like it is today. Oil, natural gas, and coal are going to be our main source of energy for many many more years.

Ethanol is just corn beer that went through a still. It's moonshine. To distill alcohol one must tend a fire (or else get an alternate heat source that reaches 212 F plus the latent heat of vaporization). In other words, one must use energy in order to convert the base product (very low proof alcohol from naturally fermented corn) into a higher quality alcohol. Then the alcohol must be used in an internal combustion engine. Each of these are terrific losses of the energy that is expended for an end result. The "perfect" answer, if there is one, to keep North America and Europe motive is pure vegetable oil/animal fat direct Diesel engines.
Sunflower, palm oil, used lard, safflower, canola, etc. are all usable in a Diesel engine. Some do not require refined Diesel oil and others require a small percentage for starting. Right now palm oil has the highest percentage of space for growing to oil pressed, however, as George Monbiot points out, the overcultivation of palm oil in the East Indies may result in the loss of food production for the option of cash oil crops. To be honest, there is no answer: the world is running out of coal and oil and people need land to grow food and keep our O2 producing forests intact. To be blunt, until we're ready to go to bicycles and eletric trains, we're in a worldohurts.

You're quite right about the crooked accountancy of ethanol production. The same is true of hydrogen and other "clean" fuels.

The only real answer to oil depletion and carbon emissions is: travel less.

It's not that hard. Teleworking is already possible for millions of Americans on an occasional basis, and I think that number increases every month. Downloading entertainment can eliminate trips to the video store. Online shopping allows delivery of goods in a centralized, efficient way.

The problem is that Americans enjoy driving too much. Sorry, but that's an addiction we're just gonna have to break. The first part of the cure - high and ever-rising gas prices - is taking shape now (although it's got a lot further to go - when you see gas at $5 per gallon (which I reckon will happen in the winter of 2007/08), you'll begin to understand why SUVs never sold that well outside the US...). The second part - a realistic alternative lifestyle - will take a little longer to fall into place. Online services are only a small part - there will always be a lot of journeys that can't be easily replaced with electronics.

The good news is that, as people start paying the true cost of driving, more people will see the advantages of living close to their work, using shared or public transport, using local shops and schools - and those services and living areas will start to improve. It'll take a few years for the investment to catch hold, but eventually we'll end up with a much more efficient economy.

All that's required is that the consumer shouldn't be shielded from rising gas prices. Any initiative by the government to "soften" price increases should be seen for what it is - an attempt to prolong our addiction to oil - and opposed. If the Democrats could come together on this agenda, they could enlist enough Repub support to put a stop to it (after all, Repubs are supposed to be against government meddling in the economy - and there's some of them who actually believe that).

Must be waiting for us to make up our minds about this NOT

Same stuff gets planted every year Corn or Beans.

They plant a green strip around the fields (hint) to keep runoff out of the streams. The ones that don't also don't rotate crops. Don't do all the other stuff needed to keep the topsoil in place.

Want to know whats killing more fields urban sprawl

When we run out of fuel guess those homes with have to plant stuff.

Also not going to happen because they hauled all the black dirt away.

Can't even put it back

While like most people, I agree that ethanol will provide a transition-easing form of energy, and eventually a superior "boutique fuel", I, too, do not think it will solve most of our problems. One of the associated problems is soil depletion, the particular area of expertise of David Pimentel, the object of scorn by many of the ethanol promoters.

I think David Pimentel is one of the Greats. He's THE expert in soil chemistry and the crisis in soil and nutrient loss. Tad Petzak is also "one of us", having risked his job to sign the "Not In Our Name" petition.

Building a new energy infrastructure is going to be a tough, dirty, conflict-laden process; that process itself will be important, and failure to fully work things out will probably result in a long, deep, Dark Age within a century, something I do not want, even if it's beyond my lifetime.

That's why I don't really like the traditional leftist attitude that if you support, or don't oppose, certain modes of energy generation and/or business organizations, you're a fascist. I always thought that the Progressive ideal was to do what worked best, then base political decisions on what was best for the People. I believe it is possible to have (much) safe(er) nuclear energy, and I fear that it's possible for solar/wind/tidal power to be owned and controlled by ratbags.

We have a big job ahead of us. Well-informed, reasoned argument will be helpful in a lot of cases, but demonization and in-fighting? No way. It's time to change our practices from imaginary battles of Good vs Evil to the fight for Survival. We no longer have as much room for making mistakes.

--p!

Oil WILL run out. Corn grows back every year.

Too much focus is put towards EROI and the fact that oil will eventually cease to exist. How about we work to find ways to improve Ethanols EROI? Certainly we will find more efficient ways to grow corn and produce ethanol. We can always change the tax codes. We can STOP using High Fructose Corn Syrup in all of our foods and put that corn into fuel.

I like the ethanol solution. One thing the author is correct about. Lots of special interests are sending out lots of misinformation.

In addition, ethanol alone will not solve our problems but it can be PART of many numerous energy solutions including wind, solar and thermal solutions.

Believe me when I say that corn is being grown the most efficient manner possible at this time..

Taxpayers should not be supporting ethanol.. Its not renewable or sustainable..

And continue to be held hostage by oil???

:shrug:

if you're strip mining the topsoil and depleting your aquifers.

From Eating Fossil Fuels by Dale Allen Pfeiffer

To reap the full benefits of ethanol, the agriculture system must change. No doubt about it.

I guess certain people cannot stand the truth about ethanol..

must NOT USE IT AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Conservation would do more than any amount of ethanol could every do!!

Ethanol is not the answer to your problems!! And you are correct, it shouldn't be used!! Use the energy it take to produce the ethanol somewhere else!!

So his analysis must be considered in some way suspect.
He never responds to any claims that contradict his own. He says he is interested in alternative fuel but he is more likely paid to blog by his employer.
It's how oil companies have always worked. The American Petroleum Institute bludgeoned national press with David Pimentel's faulty work for years so that
no one even bothers to examine the details.

We have to know this sort of thing goes on. It's naive to believe otherwise.

This is Robert himself about David Pimentel's work:I have written before that I think Pimentel's numbers are outdated, and that he should include co-product credits. But otherwise his methodology is far more accurate than that of the USDA, and he hasn't played around with the numbers as the USDA has. He also included necessary inputs that the USDA just completely omitted.

I'll ask whether or not he works for an oil company.. But other than that, I don't see anybody debunking his research..

Ah, you must be "fuelaholic" from The Oil Drum. The same guy who made the same ad hominem arguments there, and then ran away when I posted my debate challenge: http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/05/ethanol-debate-challenge.html His antics are documented there.

But here he is as "poopfuel", getting his head handed to him on the same subject by Engineer-Poet: http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/2005/12/what-can-you-do-with-13-billion-tons.html

Engineer-Poet documented the same experience I had with poopfuel: Making unsupported claims, and then refusing to support them when asked.



Is that so? Boy, then you will demolish me if you take up my debate challenge. You can make a bunch of unchallenged claims. I’m ready when you are.



Yes, definitely "fuelaholic", because he made the exact same unsupported and libelous attack on me there. Right before he ran away. See for yourself: http://www.theoildrum.com/comments/2006/5/8/132749/1229/107#107

You know what his evidence of this was? Nothing. He just made it up, because he couldn’t address my arguments. Pretty despicable, if you ask me. As far as my interest in alternative fuel, you can verify for yourself that this is what I did my thesis in graduate school on. There are some links to this research on the homepage of my blog: http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/

That’s enough time wasted on you, friend. I prefer to debate with people who don’t resort to personal attacks when they can’t address the arguments.

RR

You're blogging here, you're blogging there. Very prolific.

Au contraire, the discussions show YOU use ad hominem attacks, bash the messenger, and pay no attention to any arguments that were made. This is why I
accuse you of what you say you are not. Read your first response to the Blume link post. Tell me that's a person who takes an off-the-cuff talk(not a paper) seriously. On the contrary, it is someone who just attacks it in a petty way.

If you go back and look at your insulting responses to Mr. Blume, you will see what I mean. Be objective.

Then maybe we can talk. I reacted mainly to your use of selective points, all of which I and Mr. Blume could respond to. But I told him it was not worth his effort or mine.
I simply don't want to get bogged down in a lot of ad hominem attacks. And I don't have the time you have. Blogging is not my life.

Libelous? It's impossible for me to verify what you are or for you to do so to me.

If you weren't feeling a tad bit guilty about your employer, you probably wouldn't be so sensitive about it. Right?

I am truly glad to hear you have a family and are concerned. Perhaps going b ack to research would make you happier, more hands-on stuff, rather than ivory tower pulpit preaching as you do on many blogs, it appears.

Sorry if I don't get back to you promptly, you or e-poet. I have a lot of things on my plate. Again, I can't get bogged down.
Check out Macedo's work. He did a study showing beet return was 11 to 1 or some such, then he re-did the study and got 8.5 to 1. He really is the pre-eminent researcher on the topic.

Best wishes..... really

There you go again with the insinuations. I think people can see right through you. My guess is that you are simply an ethanol shill who has lost his shirt in something like Pacific Ethanol, and you are just bitterly lashing out. Of course I have no evidence for that, but it never stopped you from making insinuations.



Do us all a favor and look up the definition of "ad hominem". What I attacked was Blume's claims. I showed that some of them were simply not credible. I have linked to the discussion above, where the readers can verify the exchange. What you did was come back and just call me a bunch of names. You refused to address my arguments, and you refused my debate offer. You made a number of unfounded (and untrue) accusations against me. You called me an "insulting smug wannabe know it all" because I challenged Blume's claims. Those are all classic ad hominem arguments.



When Blume responded (via you), I reiterated my debate challenge. We would both have to support our points with something other than assertions, which is why you backed down, IMO. Blume shoots from the hip, but just a bit of fact-checking shows that some of his claims are false. So, I would demand the arguments to be well-referenced. I think this would be to your detriment.



Well, that's an interesting take on things. Someone who gets annoyed when false and unfounded charges are leveled against them only does so if they are feeling a tad bit guilty. So, let's say I accuse you of a crime. Should I expect the same reaction? If you become annoyed, it's because you are feeling a "tad bit guilty"? Or might you become annoyed regardless of whether you were guilty.

Also, the irony that an anonymous poster like yourself would question my motives is just too rich. What do I know about you? Nothing. You might be involved with the American Coalition for Ethanol. You might be an ethanol stock pumper and dumper. Yet here I am, using my own name, with alternative energy credentials that anyone can check. I have been completely forthright about my employer, and yet you still have the nerve, while hiding behind a pseudonym, to question my motives.

Tell you what. When you are ready to back up your arguments with some actual literature references, my debate challenge awaits: http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/05/ethanol-debate-challenge.html

RR

And live happily ever after.

When Brazil solves their labor and environmental problems maybe I'll be able to appreciate your arguments more.

Personally I think it is a terrible idea to shift fuel production into the same competitive sphere as food production. If we do this in a world where political systems do not protect ALL people, then the poor will be placed in a situation where they are starving so that affluent people can continue to drive their cars.

biomass, and other "above ground" energy sources. Do you work in or have a degree in anything you are talking about?

I agree that ethanol is not a panacea, as is biodiesel, hydrogen, biomass, solar, wind, geothermal, etc. on their own. What is required is a very diversified and decentralized network of biomass, geothermal and biorefineries evenly spaced throughout the country. And, of course, conservation.

BTW, that guy from Cornell, the perpetual naysayer, has been throughly and shamefully debunked. For example, I recently listened to a lecture by Dr Bruce Dale from Michigan State University and he explained the fallacious "energy balance" of ethanol of 1.2:1. He described the "energy balance" argument as "stupid". This "energy balance" includes the food the workers eat, the energy it takes to get the worker to the plant, etc. Needless to say, these factors are NEVER included in any other "energy balance" study. Dr. Dale asserted that it takes one BTU of fossil fuel energy to produce 20 BTU of ethanol. How is this possible? Simple, corn (or any other plant) stores solar energy in the form of carbohydrates. By applying heat, enzymes and water, alcohol is produced and distilled.

Yes, not every single BTU of energy is recovered from the corn/grain distilled into ethanol, but in order to use the existing liquid fuel infrastructure, liquid trasportation fuel alternatives like biodiesel and ethanol make the most near term (20-30 years) sense. Ethanol and biodiesel crops will be moving away from traditional low yield energy crops (soy, corn, etc) to high yield energy crops like oil bearing algae, hemp, switchgrass, etc that do NOT compete for food cropland. These crops can be grown where nothing else will grow. Corn and soybean derived fuels are merely the beginning of the beginning not the end all be all of "above ground" energy.

These are wild places that should be left alone.

We've already destroyed far too many wild places. Destroying more wild places for fuel is not ethical.

End of story.

I'm talking about all the places that are nearly devoid of life. the desert. non-arable land. brownfields, contaminated sites, etc. jeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzz!!!

for example, there are strains of algae that can be grown in saltwater ponds that yield 100 times the oil of a conventional soy, rape, or other food oil crop.

Keep off the desert.

I don't even like solar panels on the desert, but they wouldn't be nearly so destructive as algae ponds.

i suppose you have a better idea then, right??

That everyone should just stop using energy. Problem solved!

It's amazing to me how many people think the only solution is to conserve.

If conservation was so easy we'd do it just for the feel-good factor.

Reality is that lots of people have to drive very far to work and don't have the luxury of quitting thier jobs to find something closer.

Why you'd want to leave a dessert alone is beyond me. Deserts are mostly wastelands. There isn't much of an ecosystem to disturb and it sure beats destroying the entire planet by burning fossil fuels.

The reality is we *make* society. By necessity we will probably build a society where cars are much less important.

BTW, deserts have very complex ecosystems.

I am very much in favor of limiting our use of fossil fuels, and I believe we can do it in ways that do not destroy more wilderness, and in ways that increase our standard of living, not decrease it.

In most cases driving long distances to go to work does not improve the quality of people's lives.

Oh, you said "deserts have very complex ecosystems", not "desserts". Sorry.

Note to self: Stop drinking and clean your glasses.

:)

I think the trick is, that if we conserve our resources, and we cut back on our pointless expenditure (like commuting by car), and we find new ways of generating and storing energy, then we might stand a cat in hells chance of getting through peak oil and climate change almost intact.

Miss any of those and we're utterly fucked.

They all have their place but when you think of SCALE and what exactly you are using them for, its still not a replacement for oil..

Then maybe it's not a replacement.

Loan people money interest free to heat thier homes with solar, wind (there are new turbines made for residentials roofs coming out), and geothermal and you'd make a huge impact.

And we don't need to replace oil over night, or even over 10 years.

We should slowly but surely decrease the demand by offering massive incentives for decentralized green power generation.

Actually, you need alot of yeard space for geothermal to work, the wind doesn't blow all the time and solar just doesn't cut it for the average homes.. Not to mention, all these will have little impack when it comes to oil depletion on a worldwide scale.. Solar, wind and geothermal are not part of the equation for replacing oil..

and we needed miles and miles of pipelines and wells by the millions, trillions of dollars, hundreds of refineries. but we decided against drilling for oil.......

also, it takes more energy to boil your potato than you get out of that potato, maybe you should stop eating......

a $15-20,000 solar electric system will put the average home "off the grid"

geothermal techniques have been developed that require less than a 1/8 acre to work. the west is full of hot enough rocks to boil water to generate steam.

I must ask, since all you have to say about alternatives to oil is "nay" - what do you suggest we do? also, who do you work for? do you spend all your time trying to debunk all the good things people say about alternative energy?

I do. In fact, my lab was adjacent to Bruce Dale’s (whom you mention below) when he was at Texas A&M. I would be glad to address any and every ethanol question you guys have. I also enjoy discussing alternative energy in general.



I think you must have misunderstood Dr. Dale, or he wasn’t actually making a comparison of total BTUs in and out. Even the pro-ethanol USDA studies show an energy balance of 1.3, and they are counting co-products as BTU credits. That means you input 1 BTU to get 1.3 back out. There is no way it is 1 BTU of fossil fuel to produce 20 BTUs of ethanol. Absolutely not possible. In fact, during the fermentation and distillation steps, 2/3rds of the net energy content of the ethanol is used up getting the water out.

RR

"One barrel of petroleum used in producing ethanol generates 20 barrels of ethanol"

I suggest you ask him about this statement, because how he explained himself made sense - if you use one barrel of oil to "unlock" the stored BTU's out of corn(for example) through fermentation and distillation, you get 20 times the BTU. How is this possible? simple, corn is a form of stored solar BTU's, and unlocking that energy is a very simple process that does not require as much BTU input as is "unlocked".

he also reminded the audience that "not all BTUs are created equal"

I understood this to mean that just because a certain substance has more BTU content than another does not mean that the energy in that substance can be as efficiently extracted as the BTU from a lower energy substance. It is all about convertibility to useful applications and usefulness in the current fuel/energy infrastructure.

After all, look at the USDA studies. They show actual energy inputs from surveys of corn and ethanol producers. In their 2002 report, they show that for a fossil fuel input of 77,228 BTUs they could make 84,100 BTUs of ethanol. The energy balance for just fossil fuels in and ethanol out was a measly 9%. They report 34%, because they assigned a BTU value to the animal feed byproducts. But they also neglected secondary inputs, such as the energy required to build the ethanol plants.

I am not around Dale any more, so I can't ask him that first hand. If you can find a published reference to where he has made this claim (so I can verify he isn't actually saying something other than it appears), then I will e-mail him and question him about it.

RR

from this link: http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-ess-p2-agp2-BruceDale-biomass.doc

"Dr. Bruce Dale
Plant Biomass Opportunities - a Q&A Session

He discussed the statement that ethanol consumes more energy than it provides. He stated to evaluate any energy source by the net BTU is short-sighted and ill advised. He continued to state that all sources of energy have poor net values. BTUs are not ‘equal’. Ethanol actually has better net values than gasoline or electricity. A better comparison would be his “petroleum replacement value” which was mentioned in his morning presentation. Ethanol = 29%, Electricity = 237% and natural gas is in between. More appropriate is how much energy you get out of a material. Ethanol = 20 units; Gasoline = 8 units.

Q&A
1. Fuel Cells – are fuel cells being designed for laptops that run on methanol?
This is being developed but the amount of methanol in the capsule is so small as not to be a major production. In addition, this will not come from agricultural sources. The methanol is being produced from natural gas.

2. Switch grass - Is switch grass a practical source of ethanol?
There are diesel-like molecules in all agricultural materials. Yes

3. Manure – can biodiesel be made from manure
Don’t know enough on the issue.

4. Consistent supply – Ag materials are typically only available in the fall. Will storage and supply be critical issues?
These are details that would have to be worked out for each material used. If it can be dried and delivered for storage it would be a more consistent supply.

5. Distillation costs – Is the efficiency of distillation step in biogasification a concern?
The process calls for fermentation and distillation. The two processes can be operated independently or jointly. The distillation demands a lot of heat but it can use the heat generated from the fermentation process. The system is most productive and efficient when the two processes are operated jointly.

6. Replacement Value – What is the replacement value for biodiesel?
During his presentation, Dr. Dale listed petroleum replacement values for different materials. Biodiesel wasn’t listed. He stated it wasn’t calculated but he expects the value to be similar to ethanol.

7. Landuse – Are there landuse issues involved?
To promote any agricultural energy source requires good land and water. Michigan is one of a limited number of states that has this advantage.

8. Enzymes – What is the role of enzymes in Ag based energy?
To develop an energy source, we need to reduce the cells and convert starch to ethanol. The process involves two main steps: 1-thermal and chemical or acid pretreatment; and 2–enzymes to convert the material to sugar. Initially, the pre-treatment was very costly and the limiting issue but it has become very economical. The enzyme portion is now the limiting cost factor. Each pre-treatment and enzyme process must be designed for each base material. More research is needed to design these and reduce costs further.

9. Sugar byproducts – Can sugar byproducts be converted to ethanol?
More research is needed.

10. MSW – Can municipal sewage be used as a feed stock?
This is probably best suited for drying and burning as a fuel. More research is needed to use it as a feedstock.

11. Oil Companies – What are the oil companies doing?
Several are realizing that they need to diversify to stay in the energy business. Shell and BP are both investing in ethanol.

12. Corn Ethanol – Can we develop our ethanol needs from corn?
Recognizing that corn is also used as human and animal feed, the supply of corn for ethanol is expected to peak at 7.5 billion gallons. This will be reached in the near future. To get past that, we need to develop a cellulose (grass, etc.) based supply."

In the ethanol debate, there are exaggerated claims, misleading claims, false claims, and true claims. This claim: "More appropriate is how much energy you get out of a material. Ethanol = 20 units; Gasoline = 8 units" would appear to be one of the first 3.

There is a quite simple test that I like to pose to people who make such claims. If I have 1 BTU of energy to invest, will I have a higher return by investing it into ethanol or into fossil fuels? If you do the calculations, you will see that fossil fuels win that argument by a factor of 4 or more. You can see some calculations on it here: http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/04/energy-balance-for-ethanol-better-than.html

What Dale is doing is applying some kind of alternative metric, which is what a lot of ethanol advocates do. What it typically involves is measuring ethanol with one metric, but then measuring gasoline with a different metric. That is not a scientifically valid way of comparing the two. The metrics have to be consistent.

Finally, let me point out that this does not mean that I support the status quo. Or reliance on petroleum, and especially petroleum in countries unfriendly to U.S. interests, is something that must be addressed. But there are much, much better solutions than ethanol. Grain ethanol is a boondoggle, plain and simple. I think biodiesel looks pretty good, though, as long as it can be produced mostly from something other than crops: http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/03/biodiesel-king-of-alternative-fuels.html

RR

you have to prove out your statements with facts, not just blog entries on some blog.

Sure GRAIN ethanol may not be the most practical form of energy, but in the long run alcohol based fuels are a big part of the future, and CELLULOSIC ethanol is where we will end up, not GRAIN!!

if i invest 1BTU into producing more oil, all i get is more oil. when i put 1 btu into producing ethanol, i keep some oil in the ground, instead of extracting it.

You should not ask me, you should ask DR. DAle before making ANY ASSumptions about what he is doing to arrive at his numbers.

It never ceases to amaze me that: 1). Those who are really pushing ethanol don't seem to know that much about it, but 2). They are quick to get hostile when you point out the facts to them. It's like you have just told them there is no Santa Claus. The worst are the ethanol investors, because they are just trying to make money and they don't care anything about energy balance, sustainability, etc. But I am continually amazed that people who claim they care about the environment don't really care to honestly evaluate ethanol claims.

First, I have proven out my statements with facts. My blog entries are all highly referenced. What I do is take the numbers out of the USDA and Argonne reports and show you how they got them. I refute them with their own reports, showing how they are doing creative accounting to come up with the numbers they do. Feel free to look at any of my essays and find an unsupported claim, or one that isn't well-referenced.

Second, my graduate thesis was on cellulosic ethanol. I spent years working on the process. You needn't lecture me on it. As of now, it's not there yet, and it may never be there. I am hopeful on this front, but it still suffers one of the major problems of grain ethanol. You have to distill a solution that is primarily water to get the ethanol out. That is incredibly energy intensive, and is done with fossil fuels (mostly natural gas, but lately trending toward coal).

Finally, you don't seem to understand that energy return is critical here. If your energy return is not substantially better than 1.0, then you really aren't keeping any fossil fuels in the ground. You are taking oil, natural gas, and coal and turning them into ethanol. Now, you can get away with turning coal into ethanol, but it is neither clean nor sustainable. It doesn't make too much sense to turn natural gas into ethanol at a poor EROI, because you could just use the natural gas in a more efficient manner directly as a transportation fuel. This would bypass the mining of the soil, as well as the negative environmental aspects of expanding corn farming to make a marginal fuel.

Finally, it isn't up to me to address Dale's claim. As written, it is wrong. He is probably saying the same thing that I addressed below: That for some value of liquid fuel input, you get a multiple of ethanol input. But it ignores the rest of the fossil fuel inputs. Dale introduced a special metric. You have quoted him. It is your responsibility to support that claim when challenged on it. As stated, it flies in the face of every published report on the issue, and it flies in the face of my first hand knowledge on the subject. It is as if you drive a car that gets 20 mpg, and every published report says it gets 20 mpg, but suddenly you read a quote from someone who claims the car actually gets 200 mpg. You wouldn't take that claim seriously, because you know better, and you would probably expect the person making the claim to support the claim.

RR

They will get you in big trouble, especially if you are appealing to data instead of making "appeals to authority." http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

"Appeals to Authority" that supports your position (and the appeal should include the terms "Harvard," or "Cornell" or "Princeton" if possible) are certainly to be preferred to being an expert yourself or having direct experience yourself.

Also you will be get in big trouble if you insist that people back up their claims. Many arguments are true simply because the person making them says they are true. Facts? We don't need no stinking facts.

:eyes:

;-);-);-)

Can you show an instance in which I have appealed to authority? Earlier, I referenced some of my blog entries, which are all well-referenced. Nowhere do I ever say "Joe Blow at Princeton says....". I will pull the numbers out of these reports and crunch them.

On the other hand, you may just be kidding, and it wasn't clear to me. If not, you can certainly call me on it any time you think I am appealing to authority.

RR

My lack of use of said button is a way of testing my writing.

I failed the test this time. ;)

You have the sound of a man who knows what he is talking about.

It can be an acerbic stew, especially here in Environment/Energy where so much of the news is bad.

I almost commented on your post below this morning. You are absolutely correct about the EROI calculations. When ethanol advocates look at gasoline, they ignore the oil production step. When they look at ethanol, they look at the entire process. They use mixed metrics.

This is the question I like to pose to them: If I have 1 BTU of energy to invest, will I end up with more BTUs in the end by investing it into gasoline production, or into ethanol production? Please show your work. :)

Again, that's not to suggest I support the status quo. But claims that ethanol is more efficient to produce than gasoline are ludicrous.

RR

I am not around Dale any more, so I can't ask him that first hand. If you can find a published reference to where he has made this claim (so I can verify he isn't actually saying something other than it appears), then I will e-mail him and question him about it.

first you tell me you would email him and ask him about it, then you tell me he used some new "metric", then bash me for providing you with the quote you requested. he must have been misleading a whole room of farmers, engineers, plant owners, etc.

But forget that, let's assume that you are correct and ethanol is a boondoggle. Do you mean to tell me that all there is all this building going on and it's NOT going to last?

The latest numbers for production/construction
Current capacity: 102 plants 4.569 billion gallons
Under construction: 36 plants 2.067 billion gallons

2005 ethanol production: 4.1 billion gallons
2004 ethanol production: 3.41 billion
2003: 2.8 billion
2002: 2.130 billion
2001: 1.77 billion

Why are people investing in this if it is not going to last?
Is all of this investment into ethanol a political scheme to get votes from Iowa primary voters?(nearly 1.4 billion gallons of ethanol was produced in Iowa last year)

I said no such thing. Please don't misrepresent me. Address what I actually wrote.



Of course he did. You posted it yourself: "petroleum replacement value".



Where were you bashed? You said I have to support my statements with facts, not "just blog entries on some blog". I pointed out that my blog entries are composed of highly-referenced facts. For the most part, I use papers from ethanol advocates to show what a boondoggle this is.



Do you know about the Hirsch Report on Peak Oil? They stated in there a couple of times that the ethanol industry only exists because of the subsidies. It will last as long as it continues to be subsidized and mandated. But ethanol prices will go up as fossil fuel prices go up, since the fossil fuel input is large. It is a nonsustainable solution, because it is entirely dependent upon cheap fossil fuels.



Again with the misrepresentation. "not going to last" is your straw man. It certainly will last, for a while, because it was mandated in the energy bill. Ethanol producers will make money because of this mandate. But all of the money they are making is coming at taxpayer expense, and is a complete waste of taxpayer money.



Not necessarily just Iowa voters, but it is definitely a political scheme. It sounds really good, and plays to the right constituency. But in my estimation 90% of the ethanol advocates I run across are completely uninformed on the subject, and unable to discuss it intelligently without resorting to name calling and insults.

RR

it will last as long as we pay for it.

A few questions for you

1. Why can't we use other renewable energy sources (geothermal, direct burning of grains/biomass) or our own output (ethanol, distillers grains) to produce more fuel, instead of fossil inputs?

2. Is there anyone who has presented an argument for ethanol you did not disagree with?

3. Do you still work in the oil industry?

4. Have I insulted you in some way?

5. How do you define "cheap" fossil fuels?

And by the way, you did say you would email Dr. Dale and question him, I quoted your post. but I will email him myself and ask him to explain it again. I think I mentioned before, I listened to him speak at a state sponsored ag-energy conference, and it appears that he has little motivation to lie.

Good question. If I was making excess energy, I would certainly use a portion of that energy to run my process. It would be just like printing money, and then reinvesting the money. The fact that they depend on fossil fuels instead should set off alarm bells in your brain.



You mean a "pro-ethanol" argument? I can think of a couple. There are cases in which ethanol might be appropriate for use as an oxygenate or octane booster. There may be a few states that may have an energy balance favorable enough to justify an ethanol industry that could compete without subsidies. There are also "anti-ethanol" arguments that I disagree with. I disagree with Pimentel’s assessment, because I believe he did use pretty outdated data. I don’t believe co-product credits should be completely discounted, but there needs to be some kind of analysis comparing the energy inputs into what the co-products that are displaced.



I do. However, I am involved in our alternative energy development efforts. I believe in alternative fuels, and I know we have to develop sustainable solutions. The fact that I work for an oil company has nothing to do with my opposition to ethanol. It just provides a convenient ad hom argument for those who are unable to address my points. But think about it. Wouldn't I be more likely to use a pseudonym if I had ulterior motives?



Borderline. You have said "you have to prove out your statements with facts, not just blog entries on some blog." That’s pretty insulting, given the level of documentation I strive for in my essays. You also wrote "you should ask DR. DAle before making ANY ASSumptions…" That’s also a bit insulting. You presented Dale’s number. I know for a fact that he didn’t mean it as you have presented it. I am not making any assumptions there. I suspect he is saying something like what I showed in reply #57.



Cheap in reference to the price people are willing to pay for ethanol. Because it is so highly fossil fuel dependent, increases in fossil fuels are going to be reflected in ethanol prices. The logical economic solution is to move toward coal, but that’s the nightmare for environmentalists.



Read the whole thing. I said "If you can find a published reference to where he has made this claim (so I can verify he isn't actually saying something other than it appears)…" What you gave me is a 2nd hand claim that is attempting to explain what he said. What I want is a paper from Dale so I can see his logic. I can assure you he does not mean what you think he means. But feel free to e-mail him. Ask him for a reference. Tell him it’s for one of Mark Holtzapple’s former graduate students.



I don’t think he is lying. I think someone has gotten confused what he is actually saying. He is definitely not referring to the sum total of fossil fuel inputs. He is certainly not accounting for the natural gas inputs.

Now, a question for you. Are you an ethanol investor? This is important, because I don’t attempt to reason with them. Like I have said before, they couldn’t care less if ethanol is the worst thing ever, as long as they are making money. So, I just leave them alone.

RR

I do not have any investments in ethanol. The only thing I've invested in is a biodiesel homebrew kit. Forgive me, but I am skeptical of anything I find or read on any part of the internet, even from those claiming to be experts. Truth be told, I work (not invest) in the natural gas industry, and I'm no mover and shaker. We all know this (fossil fuel) isn't going to last, and what is important is what we use the remaining fossil fuels for. Using them to jump start renewable energy technology is a worthy goal, imo, but if ethanol is not a part of the answer, so be it. I like biodiesel, and I think that a diesel electric hybrid is probably a good idea, but biodiesel's dirty little secret is that the methanol used to produce biodiesel is made mostly from natural gas. I know, it can be made from other sources, but we're back to our ethanol/coal dilemma again.

Call me naieve and maybe a bit confused, but it does make some short term sense to use existing transportation fuel infrastructure and engines to implement alternatives, if only to avoid the huge expenditures of energy it would take to convert our cars and fuel stations to something else.

Ah well - Maybe the fundies are right and the world's gonna end soon....

Nice talking to you. I will take your arguments under consideration, you make them well. I am not thoroughly convinced, but you have made some astute observations.

agree that by not having a large fossil fuel input going into ethanol production, we and the planet win? What are the problems involved in doing this?

From your post:

"1. Why can't we use other renewable energy sources (geothermal, direct burning of grains/biomass) or our own output (ethanol, distillers grains) to produce more fuel, instead of fossil inputs?

Good question. If I was making excess energy, I would certainly use a portion of that energy to run my process. It would be just like printing money, and then reinvesting the money. The fact that they depend on fossil fuels instead should set off alarm bells in your brain."

Take away the blue smoke and your answer implies you believe the answer to question posed is that we should not try for ethanol via a process using little or no fossil input. OK - why should we not be looking to duplicate the Brazil result - albeit perhaps by growing some other crop than corn?

The economics analysis against ethanol that seems popular seem to be the "scare folks numbers from the oil industry" - are there not disagreements as to the validity of those numbers? Below folks are claiming in SEC material(which means law problem if not true) that the economics favors ethanol.
===================================================================
Just a FYI:

University of California-Berkeley has a plant patent which describes a distinctive variety of the green alga known as Botryococcus that is unique in the quality and quantity of the liquid hydrocarbons it produces. The ancestors of Botryococcus are thought to be responsible for many of the world's fossil fuel deposits. These green colonies to be used for the production of bio-derived liquid hydrocarbons, which are potential substitutes for petroleum in the synthesis of many liquid fuels and petrochemicals - an inexpensive way to grow bio-derived gasoline and diesel components = a "Low Carbon Solution" to the world's ever increasing demand for fossil fuel derived energy.

Plenty Energy, Inc. has done production (patent prnding)of bio-derived hydrocarbon chains in novel algae. This new strain was derived from a variety isolated by Dr. Arthur Nonomura, while at the University of California in Berkeley. This new strain grows faster than previous wild-type algae and, when combined with methods to switch on growth and accelerate hydrocarbon production, this technology may allow bio-fuel production at costs much lower than currently possible. "This variety of Botryococcus has been shown to produce high levels of long-chain hydrocarbons that could be processed and utilized as gasoline and diesel..We are enthusiastic about the prospect of reducing the burning of fossil fuels and l...hope to be able to implement a commercially viable development program of the algal strain" said Dr. Nonomura. The production of bio-fuels with the reduction of GHG CO2 emissions can be achieved with this new algal strain so that we can "grow" bio-derived gasoline and diesel components at prices that could be as low as US $25-35 per barrel -compared to the current crude oil prices of US $65-75 per barrel.
=============================================================
also the The MixAlco process now has cost/reward data:
http://www.fuelandfiber.com/Archive/Fuel/Research/Holtz...
NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY: A high concentration of dairy farms in central Texas has caused degradation of waterways with excess nutrient runoff. Conventional methods of controlling manure pollution are not sufficiently effective. The MixAlco process may be an economically feasible method of treating manure wastes while at the same time producing products of value for fuel and chemical markets. The purpose of this project is to evaluate the MixAlco process for treatment of cattle wastes and to learn more about the microbial ecosystems present in the reactors.

OBJECTIVES: The application seeks to secure funding toward the purchase of a gas chromatograph for researching the conversion of fiber and manure to fuels and chemicals. The GC will be used to analyze for carboxylic acids and gas components emanating from an acidogenic digester. Previous work on the MixAlco process has established GC as the method of choice for analysis of fermentation products: it can analyze products in both the gas and liquid phases and is sufficiently robust to handle raw samples. Primary objectives of the proposed research project are to: 1) Apply the acidogenic digestion to conversion of cattle wastes, monitoring fermentation products with respect to digester operating conditions, and 2) Characterize the microbial populations present in the fermentations. Correlations between the microbial population structures and growth conditions will be determined.

APPROACH: A non-sterile acidogenic fermentation will be applied to cattle manure, with the goal of quantifying the productivity of the acid generation in response to different growth conditions. This digester is at the heart of the MixAlco process, which converts organic wastes to carboxylic acids, ketones and alcohols. To maintain high acid yields in the digester, methane generation must be suppressed. Thus two measurements that are critical to evaluation of the process are the concentrations of organic acids in the liquid phase and methane in the gas phase. The GC applied for in this proposal will be used to do both these measurements. The microbial populations present in the MixAlco digesters will be characterized using the BioLog identification system. To date the populations in the digester have been characterized in only the most general terms, such as the culture's origin (marine or terrestrial) and optimal growing temperature (mesophillic or thermophillic). Two characteristics that are required for effective performance of the fermentation are a high degree of salt tolerance and a low productivity of methane. Thus, improving the fundamental identification of the organisms present may enable further understanding and improvements of the microbial process.
===================================================
All the steps in the MixAlco process have been proven at the laboratory scale. A techno-economic model of the process indicates that with the tipping fees available in New York (126 dollars/dry tonne), mixed alcohol fuels may be sold for 0.04 dollars/L (0.16 dollars/gal) with a 60% return on investment (ROI). With the average tipping fee in the United States rates (63 dollars/dry tonne), mixed alcohol fuels may be sold for 0.18 dollars/L (0.69 dollars/gal) with a 15% ROI. In the case of sugarcane bagasse, which may be obtained for about 26 dollars/dry ton, mixed alcohol fuels may be sold for 0.29 dollars/L (1.09 dollars/gal) with a 15% ROI.
===================================================

Remember the days when the Clinton administration's budget proposal had $2.1 billion to help promote biofuels during the next decade?

Because it is a myth that the "Brazil result" was accomplished because of ethanol. We could accomplish the same result easily if our per capita energy usage was the same as theirs. We simply can't make enough ethanol to accomplish the Brazil result:

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/05/e85-spinning-our-wheels.html

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/3/7/03949/82426



The economics only "favor" ethanol because of the subsidies. The spot price of ethanol right now is around $1 a gallon higher than for gasoline, yet it only contains 67% of the energy. Does that sound like a solution the public will flock to, unless they are forced to (or it continues to be heavily subsidized)?

RR

The spot price of ethanol right now is about the same or only a little higher - it may have dropped below actually for at least a few days - than for gasoline.

I thought engines could be designed for ethanol that were more efficient than those that could be design for gasoline - and indeed the 67% becomes well over a 100% when the result of better engine design is included.

And again you are correct that we can not make enough ethanol from corn to accomplish the Brazil result, and indeed the crop to use is very much up in the air - we want something that grows on poor soil, gives lots of ethanol, and requires near zero fossil fuel input in the growing and processing. Corn is obviously not the right choice for crop, and the process should not use something other than electricity from the grid generated without much fossil fuel input. For the next several years, if we can get fossil fuels out of our electric power stations, while still using gas or a modest mix of ethanol, bio and gas for cars via hybrid plug in diesel with a bit of fuel cell technology cars chasing that path, we have more or less accomplished all that can be expected, IMHO.

Eventually we will have to move to bio I believe - but as you note the current economics - using the non-optimum crops/processes that appear to be the only ones in the game as yet - favors gasoline. But why not heavily subsidize the development of bio NOW as we make the modest changes noted in the penultimate paragraph in this post? We sure could easily replace the volume of oil we use today and in the future is we could use Algae (algae with a high oil density grows so fast, it can produce 15,000 gallons of bio-diesel per acre). We can use algae to produce hydrogen, and that hydrogen used to "fix" nitrogen;, or the algae process at this link ttp://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/06/university_of_n.html (A Berzin 1,000 megawatt power plant could produce more than 40 million gallons of bio-diesel and 50 million gallons of ethanol a year, requiring a 2,000-acre "farm" of algae-filled tubes near the power plant. There are nearly 1,000 power plants nationwide with enough space nearby for a few hundred to a few thousand acres to grow algae and make a good profit, or at least so Berzin says), or perhaps biological fuel cells perhaps using fuel via the newly created enzymes that they say can break down the starches in almost anything? IMHO there are a lot of non-gasoline options that may well make unnecessary any return to a life style that uses very little energy when oil runs out.

No. The spot price of ethanol at the close on Friday was $3.42 for ethanol and $2.14 for mid-grade gasoline. You can see spot prices here:

http://www.aceethanol.com/

You can see a history of ethanol versus gasoline prices here:

http://www.neo.ne.gov/statshtml/66.html

Those are the prices you would pay without the ethanol subsidies.



No engines like this have actually been built in practice. The much talked about Saab was able to close some of the efficiency gap, but it still got 13% worse fuel efficiency on E85. But if you want to go for a higher compression engine, why not just jump to a diesel? The fuel efficiency there is 35% higher than for a combustion engine. We could save a lot of fuel by encouraging people to switch to diesels.

Regarding Berzin’s idea, I have written about it:

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/03/biodiesel-king-of-alternative-fuels.html

RR

I do not understand the OPIS refined products spot pricing vs this chart www.neo.ne.gov / statshtml/images/ 66.jpg which shows May 2, 2006 price as $2.45 vs. $2.22. But of course in the end you are correct - gas is quite a bit cheaper before subsidy in terms of usable energy content in today's standard V-6:

Assume
$2.22 / gallon (wholesale price of ethanol)
+ $0.51 / gallon (VEETC tax benefit)
+ $0.16 / gallon (federal corn subsidy)
+ $0.10 / gallon (small ethanol producer incentive)
+ $0.20 / gallon (state subsidies)

= $3.19/gallon effective cost of ethanol- and then -$3.19/gallon) times (1/.85) because Ethanol gives about 85% the heat-value as regular gasoline per gallon (your mileage goes down 15% approximately) and we get = $3.76/gallon

Of course impose a $50/barrel excise tax on all imports of oil and oil products, giving it back to the public via some payable in cash credit on the income tax, and we'd be energy independent in a year!

We totally agree on the benefits of diesel. Indeed we agree on Bio diesel and Berzin’s idea. Now to convince someone in the Bush administration - damn if I know how to get Bush to do the obviously correct thing.

If it were in major media and also told to Bush you know the next day Bush would do the opposite, and major media would not call him on it.

look at this chart from Argonne national lab,
the right part of the upper chart on page two.

http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/PDF/03_28_05ArgonneNatlLabEthanolStudy.pdf#search='ethanol%20btu'

because the petroleum input is so small,
it is kinda hard to see, but the gain
is at least 10 to one.

edited for typo

Do you see what they are doing? By only counting the liquid petroleum inputs, they are distorting the picture. Why wouldn't you count the natural gas or coal inputs? They are fossil fuels. The biggest natural gas producer in the U.S. is Big Oil.

I have seen this claim before. Wang at Argonne coauthored a USDA report in which a 6 to 1 return is claimed on petroleum inputs. Well, natural gas is a petroleum byproduct, and is certainly a fossil fuel. It can be used as an automotive fuel in its own right. So, why wouldn't they count it, unless they are trying to confuse the issue?

It's games like this that hack me off. They aren't interested in seriously evaluating ethanol. They are only misleading people.

RR

damn near nothing.

the heat for distilling can come from,
solar, co-gen heat, corn, wood-waste, etc


do you electricity in your life, if so , why ?

very bad EROEI, usually about 0.33
much worse for solar pv

See my response above to "leftupnorth". If you don't care about clean energy or renewable energy or sustainability, then coal is just fine. In fact, new ethanol plants are being built now that recognize that coal is a much cheaper energy source. I have noted this in my blog, and it is an adequate economic solution. It is just not one that most environmentalists can embrace.

But, the question I would pose is: Are there more energy efficient options for using the coal? The answer is "Yes". Gasifying the coal and converting it to methanol is a much more energy efficient route than the indirect and heavily subsidized method of converting it into ethanol via corn.

What I oppose in this corn to ethanol scheme is the gross inefficiency, and the fact that we are subsidizing this boondoggle. There are many better solutions, but they don't have tons of lobbyists in Washington funneling money their way.

RR

The EROEI of electricity is irrelevant to your argument here.

It's exactly like the utterly stupid argument that the EROEI of gasoline is 0.81 compared to some EROEI for ethanol of 1.9 or something.

So what? You are comparing numbers that mean two different things.

To get an EROEI for gasoline that is comparable to the 1.9 of ethanol, you must multiply that 0.81 of gasoline by the overall EROEI of crude oil. In the past this EROEI for crude oil has been very large -- it hasn't taken a huge energy investment to get crude oil out of the ground and to the refinery. When you calculate the EROEI for gasoline this way you end up with a much greater EROEI for gasoline than for ethanol.

Certainly the EROEI for gasoline is shrinking as it becomes more difficult to obtain crude oil, but I think if we reach the point where it matches the EROEI of ethanol, we will have much bigger problems to worry about than whether or not we invested in ethanol. I suspect the promotion of ethanol by big agricultural concerns and General Motors, etc., is a rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic kind of thing.

That doesn't mean I oppose ethanol. It may have a place in whatever economy we manage to hold onto. But there are a couple of ways the promotion of ethanol could make things worse for everyone as the price of oil increases. There are some very serious labor and environmental issues to consider as we produce more ethanol, and Brazil is a very good example of this. The expansion of Brazilian cane growing destroys wild places and cane field workers often suffer terrible abuse. A rapid expansion of ethanol production in the United States would likely create similar problems.

People who are looking for a silver bullet are idiots.

It's going to take all technology:

Ethanol (from grains, municipal waste, algae fed power plant exhaust)
Solar
Wind
Hybrids
Plug-in Hybrids
Increased CAFE standards
Telecommuting
Computer-dispatched carpooling

I agree with every word in your post.

I am also becoming concerned about the polarisation involved
with the implementation of the different solutions.

The ideal world (the combination of all appropriate solutions)
is getting distorted by the power plays, the politics and the
basic greed & corruption of the "decision makers". It seems
to me (yes, just another humble opinion) that rather than
advocating the best mix of technologies, current & future, to
best resolve the stupid & dangerous mess humanity has made of
this planet, various "players" are boosting "their" technology
at all costs - "their" meaning the one that they have invested
in, gambled large amounts of money & reputations on, rather than
actually contributing as such.

This approach seems to be emphasising the "alternate" aspect of
"alternative technology" rather than any integrated solution
built up of appropriate elements.

Looking at your list, I can already see the conflicts between
the grain-sourced ethanol suppliers and the algae-based ones,
between the hybrids and the plug-ins, between the telecommuters
and the car-poolers, etc. - you can read many of the disputes on
this forum - but only the "small people" (the readers, the users,
the individuals) seem to argue for the combination of solutions.
The major industry advocates for each industry spend more
time & money showing that their way is the best one.
Unfortunately, the decision-making power is in the hands of the
latter not the former and those decisions are made on the basis
of short-term financial gain, not environmental benefit at all.

I case you didn't know or read about it, ethanol blended gasoline now costs as much as regular gasoline in some Iowa station(there use to be a 3 cent a gallon discount because of a tax break). I guess the cost of ethanol is going up due to demand(something foretold here).

But the kicker is our beloved rightwing Senator Grassley made the claim that ethanol production will go from 4 billion gallons to 6 billion gallons by next year and that should bring down the cost of ethanol(it won't).