E85: Spinning Our Wheels

How much can E85 actually contribute toward our energy needs? A lot less than you might think:

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

Bottom Line?

If we converted 100% of the corn crop into ethanol, it could contribute 13.4% of the necessary BTUs toward the gasoline pool. That's on a "gross" basis. If we consider that the natural gas, gasoline, and diesel that went into making the ethanol could also fuel vehicles, the net contribution is only 1-2% - and that's from turning 100% of the corn crop into ethanol.

The "E85 everywhere" push is much ado about nothing. E85 can’t contribute enough to the gasoline pool to justify putting pumps everywhere. Second, it should be clear that ethanol is not going to make us energy independent. It is time to stop believing that Brazil is energy independent because of ethanol, and realize that it is because their energy consumption is 1/6th of ours in the U.S. If we reduced our energy consumption by that amount, we would be energy independent as well. Finally, it should be clear that we are going to have to take conservation seriously. Ethanol may make some sense in certain parts of the Corn Belt. It is an impractical solution nationwide, and won’t ever contribute more than a small fraction of our fuel needs (barring a breakthrough in cellulosic ethanol technology).

I would be happy to answer any questions or comments about the essay. Stop by and let me know what you think.

RR

I live in Indiana and 'My Man Mitch' our governors i touting it like it is some ray from heaven. It is just a way to appease the farmers once again.

It's just public relation's BS from GM to try to make the public think that they're on top of things, even though they're way behind in building energy efficient vehicles.

With a billion dollar advertising budget. :grr:

energy -

but the ag folks must change over - and they won't until there is a market

bio does work - but how to jump start it is beyond me.

======================================================

Just a FYI on some tech out there:

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.

One of these processes might be commercially viable. FYI, I worked on a cellulose ethanol process in the early 90's, and we never quite got to commercial viability (even though it seemed like we were almost there). You can read a bit about it here:

http://www.fuelandfiber.com/Archive/Fuel/Research/Holtzapple/holtzapple.html

We even won a presidential award for the research. But research is one thing, and sometimes even though it seems like you are "almost there", there is one or two snags that you can't quite resolve.

RR

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.
===================================================
http://www.fuelandfiber.com/Archive/Fuel/Research/Holtzapple/holtzapple.html

Biomass technology answers biofuels need, Texas A&M chemical engineer says
2/20/2000

It generally takes 50 years for an energy technology to go from laboratory development to significant economic impact," says Holtzapple. "Some analysts project that global oil production will peak in 2010 or 2020. Many forecasters fear the United States is already behind in developing biofuels."

To help address this problem, the Clinton administration's budget proposal earlier this month includes $2.1 billion to help promote biofuels during the next decade.
================================================
http://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2005/techprogram/P14000.HTM
Wednesday, 2 November 2005 - 2:10 PM

Application of the Mixalco Process to in-Situ Conversion of Dairy Manure and Chipped Yard Waste for Production of Fuels and Chemicals

Reactor Engineering for Biomass Feedstocks
http://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2005/techprogram/S1421.HTM
Envisioning Borefineries
http://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2005/techprogram/D1027.HTM

Brazil manage to be import free. I know they are primarily using sugar cane for ethenol but so could we. There are vast areas that use to grow cane that don't anymore and then in the cooler areas beets. Put the rum in the coconut and drink it all up.

"It is time to stop believing that Brazil is energy independent because of ethanol, and realize that it is because their energy consumption is 1/6th of ours in the U.S."

That's how Brazil manages to be import free. If we had the same energy consumption they do, we would also be import free.

RR

although I don't have time to read all the links.

But, although replacing gasoline or fuel oil with ethanol, biodiesel or whatever else sounds like fun, even if it could be done, which it can't, it's still burning stuff for energy and won't reduce the amount of carbon released. Could increase the amount if the circumstances are just right-- takes a lot of energy to make alcohol.

All it would do is reduce the amount of oil imported, if that.

I've read elsewhere that each year the world burns 400 years worth of long dead plants and animals. Even if that's way off, it means that we cannot possibly grow enough stuff to replace the oil and coal we're mining. Or even a significant amount of it.

We simply have to find a way to reduce burning stuff for energy.

(Did I say "simply"?)

If we burn 400 years worth of long dead plants and animals and your only solution is to cut back, then we would need to cut usage to .25% of current levels to be at replacement level - insanely impractical. I'm not saying ethanol as it currently exists or even E85 is the answer. I'm intrigued that they say sugar cane ethanol is 5(or whatever) times more efficient than corn ethanol. Now imagine we are all driving plug-in hybrids getting over 100/mpg and using sugar cane ethanol. You can see how oil is much less of a problem.

won't work either. So, what's the answer?

Either we find that 400 years worth of stuff somewhere else and figure out how to use it without causing massive carbon dioxide buildup or otherwise poisoning the planet, or we find another way.

We don't have many choices, and just because we spent the past 100 years developing modern energy production and use doesn't mean we can keep on doing things this way.

car enthusiasts are very excited about E85.

if you oppose E85, the only thing
you get are new political enemies

People are going to be quite upset when they can't afford fuel -- not gasoline, not E85, not anything else.

If we began the process of converting/installing E85 pumps at 10,000 stations per year, it would still take about two decades to make E85 something you could predictably fuel up with from coast to coast.

Anybody hear of the oil majors switching 10,000 pumps per year? Me neither.

And that's not including the totals as to how much of the total corn production you'd have to switch over from food to fuel, how you'd distribute it (either by truck or by a dedicated pipeline system) and the massive expansion of distillation facilities needed to gear up for something like this.

It's not that ethanol can't be part of an energy policy solution. It's just that no one - NO ONE - is asking the kind of obvious, tough follow-up questions that need to be asked.

Pointing to an ear of virtual corn on the GM website and saying "Yay! E85! We're saved!" is not going to get the job done. If we're going to get serious about this as a nation, it's time that we and our "leaders" start to talk about real numbers and timelines and how we start to change things.

my sarcasm.

Seriously I, and I'm sure many others, welcome the comments of someone who has primary researcher in the area of ethanol production. You have exactly what we need here.

Here's what I meant when I advised you on a strategy for DU posting in this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=53035&mesg_id=54674

Besides saying "Princeton," "Cornell," or "Harvard," you can also improve your posts by saying "MIT."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x55144

If you say something like "According to a conference held at MIT..." everything you say afterwards will be immediately true.

Thanks, seriously, for your comments.

I am seeing so many really great ideas here. It brings me to an optimistic place.

I think society should move forward on alternative fuels. I don't think that current corporations will help in a substantial way. They are too vested in their current way.

I once worked for the power company. They wanted to show the viability of windmills. They erected a windmill in the valley in front of their building (for visibility) not on the hilltop behind the building (for function). After a year they wrote a paper to prove that the windmill would power no more than a toaster. Case closed!

I also seem to remember that it was GM that produced the first electric car in the US but after the trial period all of them were crushed and it was declared not viable.

I think the future will mean more choices. For those who don't need the sound of power (vrooom) the electric/hybrid car will be a workable solution. For those who live near public transportation will prefer this route. For those who can telecommunicating will be their answer.

The idea that there must be ONE SOLUTION is rapidly becoming outdated thinking.
The idea that petroleum will fuel our cars, pave our roads, heat our homes, provide cheap plastics and other things cannot work forever. I am beginning to think there may be a connection between our being the heaviest users of petroleum products and becoming a country of sicker people. Our air quality is directly related to the quality of the air breathe, especially while sitting in traffic jams on a daily basis. When do we start to think that sitting in a traffic jam is the best way of "spending" our valuable time.

Just think of the changes benefitting the customer. Imagine one truck delivering groceries to you home at your convenience rather than 1000 cars driving to that big box store. Would it be more efficient and better use of the resources and the time of all people?