Vinod Khosla's presentation on Ethanol at the MIT Energy Conference

Here's a link which gives a summary of Vinod Khosla's presentation at the 2006 MIT Energy Conference:

Khosla is the cofounder of Sun Microsystems (and well known for his meticulous research before committing money to a project).

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/05/mit_energy_conf.html

THis information is provided for those interested in getting informed on what seriuous people (NOT crackpots) have to say about the ethanol fuel technology. The question of whether ethanol is a practical renewable fuel is over (just as the debate of Global Warming is over). That is why Bill GAtes, Craig Virgin, Vinod Khosla and others are investing millions of $s (Bill GAtes has a 28% ownership stake in Pacific Ethanol) leading to a 62% increase in production capacity under construction (to come on line during 2007).






Also note: A Recent Study by NRDC (National Resources Defense Council) Concludes That Efficiency and Renewable Fuels Together Could Eliminate U.S. Gasoline Need By 2050.__JW

and answers a lot of the questions that
people have about biofuels.

Pimentel and Padzek's tesis that EtOH synthesis is inherently a loser is 100% wrong.

Lavie and Kliet's argument that econo cars are less economical because they just encourage people to drive more is kind of silly.

I think Vinod Khosla has called this one right

Coastie (PhD-Chem E; PE-Chem E)


<> <><>

Don't get me wrong. I think Pimentel used some outdated data. But his results do appear in the peer-reviewed literature. Khosla is just making claims, many of which are highly irresponsible.

As far as the debate over energy balance goes, that debate certainly isn't over. Look at the 2002 USDA study. Look at their primary energy inputs and outputs. If you just take fuels in and fuels out, you can calculate that the energy return is 1.08. That is the return without considering secondary inputs, like the energy required to build the ethanol plants. When you add in the byproducts, the return increases to 1.27. But, how much would be knocked off if they had included secondary inputs? FYI, the reason they didn't include secondary inputs is that they said good numbers weren't available. That's fine, but then they can't claim that 1.3 is the actual energy return.

Here's what needs to happen. We need to phase in a much higher fossil fuels tax. At the same time, we could reduce the income tax rates in order to keep the tax burden from being too high on those who can't afford it. This will not only encourage conservation, but it will spur a move toward efficiency. Ethanol processes that have a poor EROI will be punished, and processes that are efficient will be rewarded. An example of a process that appears to have a very high efficiency is the E3 Biofuels process:

http://www.e3biofuels.com/index2.html

If that process works as advertised, it should set the standard for future ethanol plants. Those are the kinds of processes we need to encourage - not the status quo of turning 1.0 BTU of fossil fuels in into around 1 BTU of ethanol.

RR

I looked through your blog and the e3 web site.

I am a chem e too -- was a thermo and chem e econ teaching assistant in grad school, a "batteries and fuel cells adjunct prof", and had peer reviewed articles published.

My concern with Pimentel is multi-fold--

• I don't see how Pimentel gets to an energy deficit - fermentation is a naturally occurring, exothermic process - Pimentel gives no credit for capturing that heat of reaction. (I have to assume that since the e3 people are real engineers they do recapture that heat of reaction)
  
  
• Pimentel does not show any credit for the heat recovered in the condenser when the EtOH is condensed. This is a massive amount of heat.
  
  
• Pimentel does not show any credit for the many byproducts (which "probably" make the difference in the economic viability of the e3 plant):
  • CO2 which can be converted to MeOH and/or hydrocarbons (Fischer Tropsch).
  • Protein, oils, fiber, and thin stillage.
  
  
  
• Pimentel does not show any other integration - up-stream or downstream - with the agricultural processes. Again, this appears to make an economic difference in the e3 process. REalize - e3's plant design and process design - just from the description in the web site - shows a lot of integration.

BTW - I am not a "petroleum" chem e -- I am an "electrochemistry" (batteries, fuel cells, electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles) chem e - and started out in nuke power with a three year diversion to environmental and safety regulation.

Is that Pimentel is using actual plant data, albeit outdated data. That's exactly what the USDA is doing, except they used more current data, and they didn't include secondary inputs as Pimentel did. Note that I am not defending Pimentel's numbers, but objections that he ignored heat integration are irrelevant if he used actual plant data. I agree that theoretically ethanol could be produced with a much lower energy input, but this has to be demonstrated on a commercial scale. If we increased taxes on fossil fuels that would spur a move toward higher efficiency.

I am currently a petroleum chem e, but my graduate school studies were a biochemical engineering project: Ethanol and organic chemicals from cellulose. After that I spent 7 years working for a chemical company, supporting butanol production most of those years.

RR

David Pimentel is the guy who is also warning us about the massive loss of topsoil and soil nutrients due to poorly-planned agricultural practices. If he has a bias in this issue, it's a bias toward growing food instead of fuel. The idea that he's just a shill for the oil companies makes about as much sense as saying that JohnWXY is just a shill for ethanol investors. Making Pimentel into a scapegoat does little more than silence someone who may not be saying what we want to hear on ethanol, but whose expertise on other issues may prove to be vital.

It was Tad Patzek who got the oil company money; that's to be expected, because Patzek is a petrologist. He's also been working on sustainability technologies, too, although he's a critic of ethanol. And keep in mind that such lefties as Noam Chomsky have received lots of money from the Department of Defense, as well as the CIA and other spy organizations.

They've also been pretty outspoken against some of the stupidities being perpetrated by Team Bush, and their track records probably stretch back a couple of decades.

This is not going to be a predictable era with clearly-defined lines of who's good and who's bad, with the obvious exceptions of high-profile imbeciles like Mr. Bush. I may not agree with Pimentel's (and Patzek's) conclusions on agricultural ethanol, but I wouldn't put him in the leftists' Axis of Fascists yet. We ought to exercise a little more discretion in demonizing scientists and activists working on issues that relate to our survival; even the ones we disagree with have often made serious criticisms we'd be foolish to simply ignore.

--p!

The issue with topsoil goes to the heart of the matter. At least 50% of the Midwests topsoil has eroded and what we have is nutrient poor as well as being unable to retain water. The input from fertilizers is massive and about 1% of the worlds total energy needs is for the Haber-Bosch processto produce ammonia for nitrogen fertilizers.

Pimental is not a corporate shill trying to rain on everyones parade, he's just sounding an alarm about the real costs of jumping on the bandwagon for biofuels.

If anyone here is a Chem E guy, please do not give up on fuel cells. It worries me that funds will be diverted from the basic research on fuel cells to the biofuels agenda.

Khosla makes a lot of claims that deserve careful scrutiny. For example, did he ever mention the fact that Brazil uses 1/6th the per capita energy of the U.S.? Did he mention that if we did so, we would already be energy independent? Did he mention that oil is still the predominant fuel in Brazil, and that ethanol makes less than 1/10th of their liquid fuel?

http://www.offnews.info/verArticulo.php?contenidoID=4167

Did he ever do any calculations to show that grain ethanol can't possibly make us energy independent?

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

The fact is, Khosla is trying to make money. But he is making some very irresponsible claims. I view his claims as almost dangerous, because they falsely lull people into a sense of complacency over our energy problems. Running out of oil? No problem, we will just switch to ethanol, like Brazil did. In fact, Brazil's situation is not remotely comparable to ours. They use sugar cane ethanol, which has a far superior energy return. And they just don't use as much energy as we do.

I think it is likely that there will be further breakthroughs in cellulosic ethanol technology, but we can't bank on it. We should continue funding the research, and hope the breakthroughs come. We should also consider a recent reality check on cellulosic ethanol that appeared at The Oil Drum:

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

The bottom line? We have to place a far higher premium on conservation. Mandating that stations carry E85 and that most new vehicles are flex fuel makes great politics, but simply overlooks the fact that we simply can't make enough ethanol to justify such moves.

RR

has to be a 100% replacement for gasoline.

Flex fue; engines are not the challenge today that they were even ten years ago. And chem e's are pretty creative as to sources of EtOH.

I am just showing that Khosla's claims that ethanol can make us energy independent are bogus. They are based on anticipated breakthroughs in cellulosic ethanol that have yet to take place. He keeps comparing our situation to Brazil's, but the two are not remotely comparable. I want to see him show some calculations to demonstrate what we can really do, as I have done in my E85 essay. Finally, to build up an infrastucture before we even know that the product can be supplied is madness.

RR

corn by 30%!? Iowa State Univ. research.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x55992

spokesman, providing nothing but disinformation - a poliite word for bullshit. The reason ethanol has recieved so much criticism is because it does represent a real challenge to gasoline as a fuel for transportation. Many prefer to talk about technologies that will take years to develop (e.g. hydrogen). Ethanol is present and practical right now.

FORGET ABOUT BRAZIL. CHECK OUT THE USDA STUDY (link provide here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=36988#37023)

" Table 4 presents the final net energy balance of corn ethanol adjusted for byproducts.
The net energy balance estimate for corn ethanol produced from wet- milling is 27,729
Btu per gallon, the net energy balance estimate for dry- milling is 33,196 Btu per gallon,
and the weighted average is 30,528 Btu per gallon. The energy ratio is 1.57 and 1.77 for
wet- and dry- milling, respectively, and the weighted average energy ratio is 1.67."

Now this study was based on industry wide averages. This includes older much less efficient plants. If you look at the newer plants being built (mostly dry-mill process) they are more efficient than this industry average. Michael Wang has recently stated that the results for the newer facilities are showing net energy gains in excess of 1.9 to 1 - that is better than 90%.

IT is already established that corn based ethanol is more efficient to produce than gasoline (Wang showed gasoline is a net energy loser of 19%). Among scientists (not paid for by oil industry money) this is not a matter of debate.

I have provided links to Michael Wangs's research. HE is a scientist for the Argonne National Laboratory, a part of the U.S. Department of Energy. He is a recognized authority (by serious researchers in industry, government and the academia) in this field. Nothing you have referenced can be compared to USDA research or to that of Wang's work at the ANL.

Pimentel's 'work' is fraudulent. IT is NOT legitimate research. In one of his press releases he offers as support for his criticism of ethanol fuel a list of citations which includes some of his own formerly released articles!. Pimentel is a retired entomologist (the study of bugs) who now calls himself a ecologist. A more detailed treatment of Pimentel's fallacious arguments is provided by David Morris here: www.newrules.org/agri/netenergyresponse.pdf


Ethanol is NOT all about starch based ethanol. But corn based ethanol is the quickest and most cost effective way to start replacing gasoline and reduce our imports of oil. IT is widely recognized that cellulosic ethanol is on a course to be commercially viable in 5 to 6 years (Shell Oil is a major investor in Iogen, a leading company in the development of cellulosic ethanol). BUT WE DO NOT HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL CELLULOSIC ETHANOL IS COMMERCIALLY VIABLE TO START DOING SOMETHING ABOUT OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL OR TO START REDUCING GHGs. Buying domestically produced, cleaner cheaper ethanol will strengthen our economy and improve our security. The current massive increase in capacity of ethanol production facililties (62% increase in production capacity, over 2005 production, will come online by end of 2007) will help bring cellulosic ethanol to commercial viability sooner as the the production facilities will be in place as cellulosic ethanol is ready to go to full scale commercial production.

To repeat (..again), ethanol will likely not replace all gasolline by itself - THIS IS OBVIOUSLY NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR NOT DEVELOPING IT. Ethanol used in ICEs will likely not replace all gasoline by itself - BUT ICEs are not the only technology that will use ethanol. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=the+carbohydrate+economy%2C+biofuels+and+the+net+energy+debate&btnG=SearchFuel"> Hydrogen pwowered Fuel Cells are under developement. Fuel Cells using hydrocarbons or carbohydrates to supply the hydrogen will be developed in the next 10 to 20 years(http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/IndustryInformation/IndustryInformationExternal/NewsDisplayArticle/0,1602,7714,00.html">Acta's fuel cell technology demonstrated effective. This technology will likely be the one that will replace ICEs for passenger transportation (probably not for heavy hauling though). In the mean time, developing ethanol (corn and cellulosic) will go a long way (with other technologies and greater efficiencies in design of ICEs) towards reducing our imports of oil and production of GHGs.

Arguing against the continued expansion of ethanol (or bio-diesel) use is without merit. .. despite what Exxon-Mobil and friends say.

You are delirious. If we turned 100% of the corn crop into ethanol, it could displace a maximum of about 13% of our gasoline needs – while consuming vast quantities of natural gas. Big threat. That natural gas is made by Big Oil. See:

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



I have dealt with Wang's claims here:

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/04/challenge-to-minnesota-dept-of.html

and here:

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/03/how-reliable-are-those-usda-ethanol.html



What's amazing to me is that some people are actually gullible enough to swallow such tripe. If this were true, why would we make gasoline? Why shouldn't ethanol be able to compete with gasoline without having to rely on steep subsidies. Anyway, I dispense with that propaganda here:

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/04/energy-balance-for-ethanol-better-than.html



That's ludicrous. None of their papers are even peer-reviewed. They claim a lot of things, only to later have to retract their claims. Look at the 2002 USDA report compared to the 2004 report. Look at all of areas in which they underestimated the energy inputs. I have dealt with the USDA studies in depth, including the link above. If you have something better than an appeal to authority - that is, if you have a specific challenge to one of my arguments - I am all ears.



Actually, repeating propaganda as you have done here is without merit. I have argued against ethanol. If you want to take on some of my arguments, let me know. I have linked to several above.

RR

Good presentation Robert..

Why would Dubya tout biofuels as a viable alternative?

I'll answer that for you...because he can make even more money off of it than he would off of straight petroleum.