Ethanl Production Uses Far More Energy Than It produces

[Jccarlton]

Energy planning should not be left to romantics:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/200 ... rth-energy
I have a suggestion. The NREL or some other institution should start a town and build up completely off the grid, using no fossil fuel or other sources. Then a bunch of prominent greens like Ed Begley and Amory Lovins should live there for a year or two with everything that happen on TV, say discovery. Lets see if even the most dedicated experts can make the renewables work for a lifestyle that's comfortable before subjecting the rest of us to it. The greens have been chanting about smaller is better for as long as I can remember. There have been ongoing research programs for 40 years or so. I think it's time it's all proved out. If they can demonstrate that you can live in a reasonable degree of comfort on the low carbon lifestyle they say they crave then I and any other won't have a leg to stand on. If they can't make it work then, well then we can all admit that the green model is unworkable and move on.

[Teahive]

Corn ethanol is a stupid idea but this is the first study I've come across that ranks cellulosic ethanol as worse than corn ethanol. That's quite surprising, especially given the significant quantities of cellulosic material that are available anyway. It would also be interesting to see the same analysis applied to sugar cane.

[D Tibbets]

Studies of conversion efficiency are extremely variable. It all depends on the parameters you choose to include and exclude. For instance, corn ethanol production estimates may or may not include the cattle feed that may be a by product.

Energy input in terms of natural gas used is also important as it is used for fertilizer production, and heating. This can be considered as a part of the input in absolute terms or relative terms. Natural gas is again plentiful, and cheaper than a few years ago. Natural gas cannot be used in cars though (without extream conversion costs- replacing engine systems and filling stations, etc). The goal is a liquid fuel suitable for current cars. Starting from the Sun, all energy storage steps are net energy losers. From plants to sediment to fossel fuel, to crude oil drilling, to refining, to distribution, etc. All reflect net energy losses from the energy contained in the previous step.

The important point is what resources you can use to produce a product that fulfills a need at an acceptable price. Natural gas is a big variable currently. Oil is a losing process in terms of retained usefull energy, but it works due to the (used to be) small cost of the starting product. Ethanol or coal liquifaction is the same. It is all a question of economics, and aviability of the ingrediants, and choices.

Even if you accept that it takes net greater input energy to produce a gallon of ethanol, the important point is the gallon of ethanol and it's use. Gasoline may be cheaper at times, except the price of oil and eventually its aviability are both critical.

There are many studies on the energy balance of plant ethanol production and the estimates vary widely, but the average results have clustered at a net energy positive balance of ~ 0-20% for corn ethanol. With losses at each step like I asserted above, how can it be positive or even near neutral? It is because the energy content of an ingredient is ignored- Sun light in this case. If you minimize the natural gas cost, again the results are different. If you use the vegetable oil for cooking, and then use it for biodiesel, again the energy balance perspective and economics change.

It is true that the oil situation seems to be eased currently, but nobody believes that current or increased consumption will not deplete the reserves eventually. The argument is when, will it be in 15 yrs, 50 yrs, 200 yrs? And, the question of what to do about it and when. And of course the magnitude of the contribution and the cost. Thus rambling efforts in Solar, Wind, tidal, ethanol, geothermal, fossil fuel, hydrothermal, fission, fusion, etc.
What the final contributions are to a sustainable total useful energy production (in basically electricity and liquid fuel) is any ones guess.

And yes, there is ineptness, misinformation and corruption on all sides of the many issues.

Dan Tibbets

[choff]

They've found some more of the black stuff lying around lately.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... tback.html

[paperburn1]

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot. ... M3b7fuw.99
Proof solar does wok, the government of Spain wants to tax it out of existence because it competitive advantage

[choff]

Anyone else ever hear of the Karrick Process?

http://www.byronwine.com/files/1860%20coal.pdf

[choff]

Obama doesn't approve of the Keystone pipeline, even though railroads are more dangerous. Unfortunately for the Greens, a new all Canadian pipeline will run the oil to the east coast complete with new ports. From there it can be shipped by tanker along the U.S. coast to Texas refineries, even more dangerous than railroads.

[Jccarlton]

The corn kings panicking over ethanol subsidy loss:
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/13/b ... ack-panic/

[Schneibster]

True. It's another Republican boondoggle; they're giving money to all the farmers. Unfortunately they just blew the farm bill so they won't be getting their payments anytime soon.

It will be interesting to see how long they stay Republican since their money has stopped.

[Diogenes]

Obama doesn't approve of the Keystone pipeline, even though railroads are more dangerous. Unfortunately for the Greens, a new all Canadian pipeline will run the oil to the east coast complete with new ports. From there it can be shipped by tanker along the U.S. coast to Texas refineries, even more dangerous than railroads.

Not that I buy into this stuff, but i've read that William Buffet owns the rail lines that currently ship oil from Canada, and that this Regime's current position has more to do with that than worries about pissing off the green kooks.

Evil Corporations are just fine so long as they give money to Democrats, Doncha know.

[Diogenes]

There are many studies on the energy balance of plant ethanol production and the estimates vary widely, but the average results have clustered at a net energy positive balance of ~ 0-20% for corn ethanol.

Dan Tibbets

Did you factor in the costs for driving up world grain prices and causing riots in Egypt et al?


Burning food is stupid. Stupidity of a level so insane that only Watermelons could have thought of it.

[Jccarlton]

Obama doesn't approve of the Keystone pipeline, even though railroads are more dangerous. Unfortunately for the Greens, a new all Canadian pipeline will run the oil to the east coast complete with new ports. From there it can be shipped by tanker along the U.S. coast to Texas refineries, even more dangerous than railroads.

Not that I buy into this stuff, but i've read that William Buffet owns the rail lines that currently ship oil from Canada, and that this Regime's current position has more to do with that than worries about pissing off the green kooks.

Evil Corporations are just fine so long as they give money to Democrats, Doncha know.

BNSF yup, but not from Canada. North Dakota, AKA the Bakken. If you look at the route for the Keystone, the pipeline was going right through the Bakken shale oil play.

[Schneibster]

And if you talk about ethanol and don't mention Archer Daniels Midland, you've missed the main point.

[Schneibster]

>pretty good overview of ethanol<

Many good points. A few of my own:

Ethanol production in the US is primarily from corn. Because of the production costs (in energy/carbon offsets) corn ethanol gives only a multiplier of 1.3; that is, for each 1 of input energy you get 1.3 of output energy in ethanol. This assumes whatever you're comparing the ethanol with (diesel, gasoline, and natural gas, for various processes) is used with the same efficiency as the ethanol; which is almost certainly not true.

Brazilian sugar cane ethanol operates at a multiplier of around 8. Obviously corn alcohol is not the best way to go, and in fact sawgrass has already outperformed both corn and sugar cane. Now, while this needs to be taken into account, it's also important to realize that we have, right now today, an algae that stores up diesel instead of fats and sugars; an E. Coli that has been engineered to excrete gasoline; two different types of catalysts that suck carbon out of the air and drip gasoline, one a rare earth and the other a carbon nanotube; and a method for making hydrogen from raw sewage that also helps process the sewage better, making it cleaner. There's another one I've forgotten; there are getting to be so many I can't remember them all.