Let me first say that I am absolutely no expert on biofuels. I know very little about them.

I've read some rather distressing things about ethanol and about the amount of fuel it takes to produce it. One article that I read, when taking into account all the resources required to produce ethanol, including land, water, fertilizer, actually calculated a net-negative in energy production.

If this is true, even remotely true, then ethanol is not the answer. Also, consider the environmental impact of planting massive corn fields and the fertilizer required, which can taint the environment in a way that would impact more people than even the disaster in the Gulf.

Environmentalists have driven oil production way off shore and away from the continental shelfs and ANWR. Oil spills there could be contained and cleaned far faster than drilling many miles offshore and under a mile of ocean.

 

One article that I read, when taking into account all the resources required to produce ethanol, including land, water, fertilizer, actually calculated a net-negative in energy production.

I am not sure that it doesn't take more than a gallon of gas to refine a gallon of gas. Lets not forget it takes a lot of energy to get oil out fo the ground and refine it.

One of the complaints has been the amount of water used. I have read that new process have reduced that greatly. Wish I had a link.

As far as the "we shouldn't use our food for fuel" debate, I think that's a bull arguement. According to people I know in Agriculture, the use of corn for Ethanol has put fields into production that were previously sitting dormant. Further, rises in food prices, previously attributed to Ethanol production were actual the result of increased petrolium processes, which increased fertilizer and transportation costs.

 

Time to take a second look to ethanol

Sure ethanol from corn isn't the best however other sources to extract ethanol like sugarcane, sugar beets, hemp, swichgrass or even from waste (think of "Mr.Fusion") is much more promisng.

And we could add butanol in the mix as well since it came from the same grain alcohol as ethanol.

 

KSR, it sounds to me like what you read was an anti-ethanol propoganda piece. Ethanol isnt produced by fuels, but by chemicals. In other words you dont pour petroleum into a vat with some corn and have ethanol be the resulting product. In fact, they're moving away from using corn as a source for ethanol. More and more its from plant waste and algae, using the cellulosic process to make. Its almost becoming "natural". They just need to figure out a way to make it more mainstream, have equal fuel mileage as gasoline, and more readily available.

 

I don't recall the source of the article that I read, but I'm pretty sure it was in a mainstream magazine, perhaps even a Time, but more likely a Popular Science or Popular Mechanics.

I know it's not produced by fuels. The article though did take into account the amount of fuel required to produce ethanol. The fuel required to plant, fertilize, and harvest the crops. The cost of the water and fertilizer. There were other factors as well, including as you mentioned, the lower yield of energy (mpg).

I've heard that sugar is a better, more efficient source for ethanol. As I said, I don't know much about this. But from what I've read, corn-based ethanol just didn't sound like a good idea.

 

ethanol is a decent alternative but the cons outweigh the pros and a big con is since so much farmland will need to be converted to corn production to support such an endeavor (ethanol is made primarily out of corn products) food prices will rise up due to the increase in corn crop.

 

Except that algae and trash are expected to be the largest producer of ethanol in less than 5 years...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=ahSsmDmNPDXk&refer=uk

 

The Wright brothers Flyer didn't sound like that great of an idea either, nor was the end all in manned flight. It was a starting point, corn is simply that as ethanol can be made from anything with

Ethanol can be sourced from corn, barley, and wheat, but also from cellulose feedstocks as corn stalks, rice straw, sugar cane bagasse, pulpwood, switchgrass, and municipal solid waste.

Anything with a plant cell, or that can be broken down into starch or simple sugars has an opportunity to be a feedstock for ethanol.

If Brasil can figure out a way to not import any oil, surely the United States of America should be able to. We used to be first at most everything, now, not so much. It's time to be a leader again for a change.

Corn is not the end source for ethanol. The corn that is used for ethanol is feed corn, not corn that we all eat. Year over year we have surplus' of feed corn that are exported. No one is going hungry cause feed corn, or any ethanol source for that matter is being used. Additionally what happens to the cost of everything when oil goes up in price? The price of food, services, goods, everything goes up. So the excuse that ethanol costs food prices to go up, well oil isn't immune from that at all, look at the last 10 years as raw evidence.

 

The Wright brothers Flyer didn't sound like that great of an idea either, nor was the end all in manned flight. It was a starting point, corn is simply that as ethanol can be made from anything with

Ethanol can be sourced from corn, barley, and wheat, but also from cellulose feedstocks as corn stalks, rice straw, sugar cane bagasse, pulpwood, switchgrass, and municipal solid waste.

Great first lines.

Corn ethanol might not be great but its better than nothing. We HAVE to come up with alternate fuels and they will be costly at first. Oil wasnt cheap when it first came on the market either and neither was a vehicle. Heck, even color TV was an expensive endeavor taken by companies.

 

Let me say that I'm not an expert, or even that well informed, on biofuels. I just have a passing interesting in it.

That said, I do support biofuels in general, just not ethanol because of the problems involved in actually making positive energy with it.

A few years ago there was a bit of information out about some sort of algae based biofuel that could basically be... grown? But it wasn't a food crop. It could be grown pretty much anywhere in massive tank like things, and wasn't net-negative. Does anyone remember what that is?

 

I think we need both.

I see nothing wrong with drilling as long as you obey the rules and safety standards, which BP doesn't understand and safety agencies apparently gave them a free pass on.

 

Does crude-based gasoline/diesel have a net-energy gain?

 

Depends on who you ask and what day of the month it is.

I've seen friendly reports that put the energy "payoff" of ethanol at about +33%, meaning for every three units of oil-based energy you burn (for tractors to plow the fields, plants to generate ethanol, and trucks to move the materials and fuel), the yield is the equivalent of four units of energy in ethanol.

For petroleum based fuels, the ratio is at least +300%, meaning for every one gallon of gas we burn extracting, refining, and transporting, we get four gallons of gas back. It used to be a lot higher, but we've already burned through much of the low hanging fruit of the petroleum world.

We aren't stuck on oil because of a huge conspiracy. It really is just far cheaper than any alternative, at least for now. And we'll probably remain on oil until the majority of American voters decide that the costs to the environment and our national security just aren't worth the benefits of a cheap fillup at the gas station.

Personally, I'd bet on electric cars over biofuels as the best future alternative to petroleum, mainly because all biofuels are restricted by the availability of land, sunlight, and carbon. But I also wouldn't trust even an expert prediction on this topic, since all are predicated on speculations of future technology.

I am certain, though, that ethanol from sugar crops (corn, cane, beats, etc.) is not the answer, and is not even particularly viable as a bridge to something better. Even if you throw out all other arguments, corn-based ethanol can never be more than a drop in the bucket of our national energy demands, and I'm not convinced that subsidizing ethanol from corn does anything to advance research in cellulosic or algea-based ethanol production (or any other method).

 

People need to get off of the corn deal, its not the only and by far not the best way to get ethanol.

Corn was used because it was dirt cheap and we grow a lot of it.

Also as time has gone efficiency of ethanol production has improved to a great deal.

 

I'm sorry to say, but it seems as if McCain is right. Companies can not maintain deep sea oil drilling platforms. coal is dirty, and ethanol is a waste of land. With nuclear energy, we could have cars like the Volt that would use little gas and we would not be ravaging the planet trying to obtain its power.

 

People don't want oil drilling in their backyard, wait for the NIMBY protests when plans are drawn up for these:

^^ That's Three Mile Island by the way.

And then there was this little gem:

You think an oil spill is hard to clean up, you can't just wash off radiation.

 

That so many automatically embrace that ethanol only comes from corn just shows what it is up against.

Yeah a lot of it does but it doesn't have to stay that way.

A lot of people have spread a lot of misconceptions. It's up to you to question why.

 

While in the long run we need to get away from burning fuels in our cars and look more to plug in vehicles that can run off of nuclear and hydro-electricity, in the short term, ethanol and domestic drilling could help us make the transition from being dependent on foreign oil to being energy independent. Unfortunately, most of the land in this country that could be drilled on for oil has been protected by people who don't want us to drill there, forcing us to drill in the oceans. I remember reading a while back that there is an abundance of oil under the Dakotas that we don't drill for, and while I agree that the environment should be protected and preserved, I think that it is less likely that a natural disaster would take place on land than in the water. Until we can make electric cars that cost the same to buy and operate as gasoline powered cars, ethanol would be an ideal way to help us be more energy independent without drilling for more oil.

 

The big moral objection is the “Food for Fuel” issue – that using corn for ethanol drives up food prices for the world’s poor.

People making that argument are, simply put, f'n idiots.
Ask them what the byproducts of ethanol production are after the fermentation & distillation is complete. You'll most certainly get a blank stare.

 

I think now that more money is being spent on bio-fuel research, ethanol is going to get superseded by newer technologies such as bio-gasoline which can be transported and used by the existing infrastructure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogasoline

http://www.shell.com/home/content/m...news_and_library/press_releases/2010/biogasoline_production_plant_23032010.html

 

If ethanol can shut up the whining about MPG/"fuel efficiency" and give us more (or the same) bang for our buck than gasoline, I'm all for it. I'm sick of all the crying, complaining, and folks who act like just cause an ICE is smaller that it doesn't pollute the air.

 

I think the bigger question is how much longer will ICE be the state of the art? There won't be much call for ethanol if the majority of consumers will be driving electric or hydrogen or fuel cells or whatever. Consumers are aware of electric-powered vehicles and alternative technologies to petroleum like never before. That creates desire, which creates demand which drives research and innovation. Technology has made vehicles like Volt and Leaf possible. One big shift in how we perceive and conceive of transportation could change the entire industry, and quickly. Look at how the Internet has changed how we work and play, and how it has driven computer innovation and sales in the past fifteen years. Real, useful, practical electric vehicles will do the same thing to the automotive industry.

Then we wouldn't need ethanol at all.

 

Ethanol is an answer, the trouble is, everyone seems to think corn is the only way to make it. So because corn isn't viable, they think ethanol isn't either, which is ridiculous.

It can be made from wood scraps, most any plant material at all actually.

The real answer is marijuana of course, it grows 10 feet tall in 4 months, but we all know that won't happen, because someone might get high and feel good...can't have that.



Ethanol would work just fine in this country, but it would upset a lot of rich old people who don't want to have the source of their income change.

 

We've got a brand new ethanol plant near us and it's surrounded by farms as it was built in the country away from town. It pulls so much water from the ground to make ethanol that the wells on the farms around the ethanol plant are dry. These farms are pretty worthless when there is no ground water below them. Imagine turning on your kitchen faucet to get a drink of water and nothing comes out. We are surrounded by cornfields but we still sell a lot of non-ethanol fuels. I'm all for being less dependent on import oil but I also like the idea of water for drinking purposes.

 

..... that using corn for ethanol drives up food prices for the world’s poor. ......

In order to plant, fertilize, harvest, process, ship, and store foods, a lot of fuel is needed. That cost goes into the ultimate cost of food. As a competitor for oil-based fuels, ethanol usage reduces gas and diesel demand, thus driving down the price for that gas and diesel. So ethanol usage can lower food prices.

 

One problem with ethanol is transportation. You can't use the existing pipe infrastructure, so it has to be trucked to most locations.

Ethanol, butanol, even electric/hybrid vehicles are but a stepping stone to the next thing, which could be hydrogen/fuel cell vehicles.

 

One problem with ethanol is transportation. You can't use the existing pipe infrastructure, so it has to be trucked to most locations.....

Actually, ethanol can be transported by pipeline (it is done now) you just can't transport it in the same pipeline used for gasoline/diesel/oil.

 

Ethanol requires more energy to produce than is gained by its addition to the gasoline. The addition to gasoline reduces the fuel mileage on cars. The cost of ethanol also needs to include the increase in cost of food products due to its having used corn and increasing the price and availability of corn.

The subsidizes to certain companies to "help" them afford to produce ethanol also adds into the cost. It's nice to subsidize those big businesses.

The production of ethanol generates a large amount of carbon dioxide. THe local ethanol plant, owned partly by a large grain company in Toledo, tried to get around the carbon dioxide part being labeled as a toxin by the EPA (it's not a toxin, BTW) by having Batelle attempt to inject the CO2 into the earth rock layers rather than into the atmosphere. The local community got that stopped.

I realize there's a green group pushing for anything that they believe might, might be effective. Windmills are not. Even the Kennedys didn't want windmills off their shoreline in Martha's Vineyard, but everyone else's shore line was okay with them. Windmills aren't the answer. Solar panels aren't the answer.

Nuclear is the best solution. Too bad the green folk vetoed it with harrassment through the decades. We would have saved LOTS of petroleum and coal product by generating electricity using the nuclear plants. Even France got the idea long ago how to do it right.

 

I'm against conventional nuclear power plants due to the vast amount of highly radioactive wastes they produce, plus their capacity to produce nukes. But I am very excited about the proposals that we retrofit current plants using thorium technology, plus build new thorium plants, as they produce little waste, can't melt down or produce nukes, plus the US has a VAST storehouse of thorium in the ground and already refined and in storage.

 

Excellent discussion.
Some questions from me:
Congress has mandated CAFE for, roughly, forty years. Despite that, we continue to hear "we must reduce our dependency on foreign oil." Why? Doesn't CAFE work?
Fuel "economy" mandates are placed on the auto manufacturers. Many new cars use E85. Why are there no mandates on petroleum retailers to make E85 available?
We have a tariff on Brazilian ethanol of about 45 cents a gallon. Why?
The environmetal lobby fought, successfully, against a pipeline from the North Slope to the lower 48. This led, in time, to the Exxon Valdez disaster. Did the environmentalists secretly want a disaster for some other purpose?
When we have problems we blame them on shortsighted unions or shortsighted management. Who makes the decisions on legislative mandates, tariffs, other taxes, etc? Are these decisions made on Mars or in some US city which we may not mention?
Cheers,
Ed

 

Congress has mandated CAFE for, roughly, forty years. Despite that, we continue to hear "we must reduce our dependency on foreign oil." Why? Doesn't CAFE work?

#1 CAFE does nothing to fundamental change the fuel source.

#2 CAFE makes actual driving cheaper per mile. As efficiencies are brought to bear to make vehicles more efficient, it's cheaper to drive. When it's cheaper to drive a given mile, people are going to do more of it. CAFE is self defeating.

#3 In the US we add around 3 million new drivers every year. We simply demand more fuel.

CAFE has been in place for 40 years. CAFE doesn't work, cause the premise doesn't capture the problem end to end. CAFE will continue to fail.

Fuel "economy" mandates are placed on the auto manufacturers. Many new cars use E85. Why are there no mandates on petroleum retailers to make E85 available?

Big Oil doesn't want it, Big Oil has mega influence over the political environment that would be responsible for legislation to change our course. That simply won't happen, why? Big Oil since 1998 has spent 966 million with 788 registered lobbyists to see to it that our government continues to support oil, and even provide subsidies to the same companies that set record all time profits for any company ever! The US Citizen doesn't have true representation by our government, this is rather obvious. This is called Corporatism. Corporations control our destiny. President Eisenhower spoke about this very same thing just before he left office about the Military industrial complex. Corporate profits on war, or privatizing military functions. He also referenced the same ideal, Corporatism, where we citizens lose control of our destiny and path forward, in favor of Corporate agendas that bring hardship to economies and people leading to the downfall of our country.

We have a tariff on Brazilian ethanol of about 45 cents a gallon.

This is to provide a balanced reciprocal value on the Ethanol commodity produced locally versus another low cost importer. If we don't have something that brings trade and value balance, the investment in the US for technologies and production will fail even before they get started from countries who's cost basis is a much lower standard when compared to the US.

 

Amazing story and pictures from Chernobyl. If you have not seen or read this piece, sit down and be amazed.

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/

 

every energy source can be shown to have a 'net energy loss' if we include all processes involved in extraction/production/delivery/efficiency etc.

I believe that the use of ethanol will lead to new ethanol technologies that will be more self-sufficient, use less 'food' crop sources and give us a viable energy alternative to the oil based energy system.

 

Easy solution: a 10 cents a gallon tax to oil that rises 10 cents every year for ten years. This will raise the price of oil products, and make ethanol and other substitutes economically viable without subsidies.

And for the inevitable "don't raise our taxes" chorus, offset the revenue from the oil tax by cutting income taxes a like amount.

Simple.

Of course, once the nice folks in Washington get their hands on it, this simple proposal will generate 7 different kinds of rebates, 14 research grant programs, a new bureaucracy to manage it all, and an income tax surcharge . . . just for fun.