Ethanol Deception - Is It Really Better Than Gasoline?

[Ivan Seeking]

I was just watching a review of ethanol energy on CNN. They report that Consumer Reports claims that cars using ethanol see no decrease in mileage or performance.

Now I'm not sure what Consumers Reports claimed and a source wasn't cited, but the point of the story was to consider the performance of ethanol compared to gasoline, which was left somewhat vague in the end.

Gasoline has about 125,000 BTUs per gallon, and ethanol has about 76,000 BTUs per gallon. The last time that I checked, the conservation of energy law was still in effect.

Sidebar: IMO, nothing that Consumer Reports claims can be believed. This is not the first time that I have run across this sort of nonsense. In fact, just about anytime that I see a report from them on something that I happen to know about, they're wrong.

 

[JasonRox]

If the consumer doesn't feel like it decreased in performance or mileage, who gives a ****. The consumer is happy period.

It's not like they're saying it's scientific. It's a Consumer Report.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If the consumer doesn't feel like it decreased in performance or mileage, who gives a ****. The consumer is happy period.

It's not like they're saying it's scientific. It's a Consumer Report.

It is a report FOR consumers that is supposed to be based on testing. Many people rely on their information when making buying decisions. Also, people are hoping to save money by buying ethanol fuel, when in fact the decrease in mileage will likely end up costing more than the savings gained by purchasing a cheaper fuel.

In order to replace petroleum with corn-ethanol, it would require about twice the land area of the US to grow the corn.

…a bushel of corn (56 pounds) on the Chicago Board of Trade has jumped from $1.86 at the end of 2005 to over $4 today…

Beef and poultry prices are likely to rise as animal farmers rely on corn for feed. … the price rise has already bumped up wholesale chicken prices 6 cents per pound.

Corn derived products serve a range of users including the food and beverage, pharmaceutical, paper products [corrugated and laminated paper], the textile and brewing industries, as well as the global animal feed markets.

"It ripples right across the economy.“

Reuters, May 19th, 2007.

 

[BobG]

I was just watching a review of ethanol energy on CNN. They report that Consumer Reports claims that cars using ethanol see no decrease in mileage or performance.

Now I'm not sure what Consumers Reports claimed and a source wasn't cited, but the point of the story was to consider the performance of ethanol compared to gasoline, which was left somewhat vague in the end.

Gasoline has about 125,000 BTUs per gallon, and ethanol has about 76,000 BTUs per gallon. The last time that I checked, the conservation of energy law was still in effect.

Sidebar: IMO, nothing that Consumer Reports claims can be believed. This is not the first time that I have run across this sort of nonsense. In fact, just about anytime that I see a report from them on something that I happen to know about, they're wrong.

I'd say they might be right depending on exactly what they said. The fuel going in may have a difference in energy content, but a lot of energy is lost between the 'in' and the 'output' - how much energy is applied to turning the tires. You have to take into account how efficient the combustion process is.

If the engine is designed for high ethanol fuels (i.e. - the engine has a high compression ratio), ethanol's performance is supposed to be roughly equivalent to gasoline. The engine wouldn't run at all on gasoline, which would currently be a pretty big drawback.

This wouldn't apply to flex fuel engines that can run on ethanol or gasoline. To use gasoline, the engines have to run with a lower compression ratio and you get much worse mileage with ethanol than you do with gasoline. In other words, you're right - in the same engine, it's impossible to get the same mileage out of ethanol that you do with gasoline.

The 10% ethanol mix that can be used by all engines also gets less miles per gallon than straight gasoline (about 3% less?), but the increase in octane gives better performance in other ways - I'd say it was a push depending on the driver's priorities.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What is roughly equivalent, and where are these cars? I don't know of anyone driving one. Is this verifiable or more Consumers Reports information?

I don't see how after all of years of improvements in auto engines, we could get the same energy from 76,000 BTUs, as we do 125,000 BTUs.

 

[MeJennifer]

Simply Not True

I was just watching a review of ethanol energy on CNN. They report that Consumer Reports claims that cars using ethanol see no decrease in mileage or performance.

Well before what you call "this sort of nonsense" and "deception" it might be good to do some due dilligence.

If we go to CNN.com we can find the article http://www.cnn.com/2007/AUTOS/05/24/cr_mpg_survey/index.html" placed today on the CNN website.

Nothing in this article indicates that Consumer Report claims anything like that.

If we look a bit further and go to the Consumer Report website we can find several articles where Consumer Reports states that ethanol is not more fuel efficient.

I include two articles:

(1) http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/pricing/alternative-autos-and-fuels-1105/renewable-fuels/index.htm"

From this report:
"Ethanol contains less energy per gallon than gasoline, so E85 gets roughly 30 percent fewer miles per tankful. Factoring in that loss, corn-based ethanol sells for about $4.09 for the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline, making it more expensive than gasoline at today's prices."

(2) http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/ethanol-10-06/overview/1006_ethanol_ov1_1.htm"

Your suggestion that Consumer Report is deceiving people by claiming that ethanol is not less fuel efficient is simply untrue. In fact Consumer Report is saying the contrary.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I just saw it on CNN. Also, I said that they didn't cite a source

Usually what happens is that I see the report and it becomes available later for a link.

Now I'm not sure what Consumers Reports claimed and a source wasn't cited, but the point of the story was to consider the performance of ethanol compared to gasoline, which was left somewhat vague in the end.

 

[MeJennifer]

I just saw it on CNN.

Well then, shame on CNN.

Here is the Consumer Report press release:
"[URL buyers seek fuel efficiency, but remain wary of trade-offs
[/URL]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Perhaps... we will see later what is linked.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In any event, ethanol has a reputation that is not deserved. It is a solution to nothing and puts food into competition with energy.

 

[Astronuc]

Certainly CNN is not scientific, but I believe Consumer Reports tries to be with a very limited sample, particularly when it comes to expensive items.

One thing CR cannot do is vouch for qualit (or quality control) of any particular item. We have relied on them, but with mixed success, although the experience has been more positive than negative.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I've seen too many false claims to believe anything they say.

I had a buddy who owned the vacuum shop in town, and one day he showed me a CR on two Eureka vacuum cleaners. One passed with flying colors and the other failed. What Tony was so amused with is that the only difference between the two models was the paint and decals.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In fact, I'll do a little digging and see if I can find it, but, IIRC, some years ago they got caught on something like this and blamed it on outsourcing - they don't do much of their own testing.

 

[MeJennifer]

Talking about false claims, did you read the two links from Consumer Reports that I included? If you did you will have to admit that the statements about deceptions in this matter are simply unfounded.

 

[russ_watters]

I was just watching a review of ethanol energy on CNN. They report that Consumer Reports claims that cars using ethanol see no decrease in mileage or performance.

Now I'm not sure what Consumers Reports claimed and a source wasn't cited, but the point of the story was to consider the performance of ethanol compared to gasoline, which was left somewhat vague in the end.

Gasoline has about 125,000 BTUs per gallon, and ethanol has about 76,000 BTUs per gallon. The last time that I checked, the conservation of energy law was still in effect.

Without knowing the nuts and bolts of the claim, it is tough to evaluate, but thermodynamically, "miles per gallon" (and therefore btu per gallon) is a largely useless thing to compare between fuels. The reality is that if you want to use ethanol in a car, you should change-out the fuel injectors to inject more ethanol, giving you in the end almost exactly the same thermodynamic efficiency and performance, but with more per-gallon or per-lb consumption.

Along a similar veign, most natural gas home heating furnaces can be converted to run propane and the basic difference is the orifice regulating the flow is different. Change-out the orifice and the performance is identical.

What is more useful is probably the chemical efficiency of the fuel. It is related somewhat to energy density, but fuels with a higher ratio of carbon to hydrogen (such as ethanol) produce less energy and more CO2.

 

[brewnog]

Energy content is pretty meaningless for performance comparisons between fuels. Ethanol is much more knock resistant than gasoline, therefore higher compression ratios can be utilised. Even on an unmodified (or gasoline) engine, ignition timing can be advanced, and charge density is increased due to the heat of evaporation of ethanol.

I'm not saying performance on ethanol is identical to that on gasoline, but then a gasoline-optimised engine isn't identical to one designed (or modified) for ethanol.

 

[BobG]

What is roughly equivalent, and where are these cars? I don't know of anyone driving one. Is this verifiable or more Consumers Reports information?

I don't see how after all of years of improvements in auto engines, we could get the same energy from 76,000 BTUs, as we do 125,000 BTUs.

You don't see any 100% ethanol engines on the road. For one thing, there's no where to fuel them up. You can see 33 of them on Sunday in the Indianapolis 500.

About the closest you might see functionally would be MIT's ethanol-boosted engine that only injects ethanol directly into the combustion chamber when extra power is needed. (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/engine.html and http://www.psfc.mit.edu/library1/catalog/reports/2000/06ja/06ja016/06ja016_full.pdf ) That's far from being on the road, either.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Talking about false claims, did you read the two links from Consumer Reports that I included? If you did you will have to admit that the statements about deceptions in this matter are simply unfounded.

If you read the op, the claim of deception was applied to the use of ethanol. This was not primarily about Consumer Reports. I just happen to know from experience that CR is sometimes full of it, so the report didn't surprise me.

I will post the story a little later as it should come up after a few hours.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You can see 33 of them on Sunday in the Indianapolis 500..

Just for perspective, didn't I hear that the use of ethanol was not based on performance, but other motives?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay, I wasn't aware of the higher compression ratios possible, but since these cars are not available and the reality is what we actually have, ethanol probably offers no financial advantage.

And for anyone who want to do the calculation, when you see the 400 gallon per acre yields for corn, after the processing requirements, multiply by 0.3 [best case for corn] as the net gain. Others claim that the real multiplier is more like 0.1 or 0.2, and some even argue that the multiplier is 0.0 - that ethanol energy is just hidden petroleum energy and it is only competitive due to subsidies.

 

[Evo]

This fits into this discussion.

With the model, they can make tiny changes to the timing of the opening of both valves and ultimately optimize how engines run on alternative fuels.

"The major issue right now is that we have all these vehicles on the road today that are 'flex fuel' vehicles," Shaver said. That just means the gas tanks won't corrode and are chemically compatible with alternative fuels like ethanol.

"Alternative fuels do not combust the same way as conventional fuels. So you can put ethanol in your engine, but your engine will not efficiently burn that," Shaver told LiveScience. "

http://www.livescience.com/technology/070510_green_engines.html

 

[BobG]

Just for perspective, didn't I hear that the use of ethanol was not based on performance, but other motives?

The push for E85 and flex fuel engines are definitely for other motives. I'd agree with the Consumer Reports article MeJennifer linked to when it comes to the flex fuel engines.

The choice of ethanol over gasoline in Indy cars may not be entirely because of increased power.

NASCAR uses leaded gasoline to provide the extra octane needed to increase performance in cars that have to adhere somewhat to stock specifications - i.e. they can modify the engines, but they can't design an entirely new engine to stick in their car. Given the possibility of increasing the octane of gasoline or using ethanol, Indy cars use ethanol. Considering the amount of time lost in the pits to refuel during a green flag and the strategic advantages of getting a few extra laps per tank, the choice of ethanol over gasoline in Indy cars suggests that the performance/fuel economy trade off of ethanol must have some advantages over gasoline.

It's a pretty big stretch to say the principles of racing at 200 mph apply to city driving and I consider claims that mileage performance is equal to or better than gasoline engines a little dubious until a few 100% ethanol engines actually hit the street, hence the 'roughly equivalent' comment in my other post. You definitely wouldn't have the 30 percent fewer miles per tankful that the flex fuel engines have.

My point was CNN's claim might not be totally off the mark unless they start mixing in comments about engines designed for 100% ethanol with flex fuel engines. There's a big difference between the two and I'm not even sure what the point of the flex fuel engines is. Flex fuel engines won't motivate gas stations to start selling ethanol if no one is actually willing to use ethanol in their flex fuel engines. In fact, the disadvantages to actually using ethanol in a flex fuel engine will probably just make the obstacles for 100% ethanol engines even larger.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The push for E85 and flex fuel engines are definitely for other motives. I'd agree with the Consumer Reports article MeJennifer linked to when it comes to the flex fuel engines.

I meant for Indy, not for the public. My understanding was that the switch was motivated entirely for environmental reasons [or even for the Indiana corn farmers?]. Or, perhaps this was some other form of auto racing that recently changed?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The most important thing to realize is that we can't possibly grow enough corn, and even if we could, which we can't, food prices would go through the roof if ethanol became competitive.

For starters, sugar beets are a much better option for ethanol production.

 

[BobG]

I meant for Indy, not for the public. My understanding was that the switch was motivated entirely for environmental reasons [or even for the Indiana corn farmers?]. Or, perhaps this was some other form of auto racing that recently changed?

Indy racing changed from methanol to ethanol. They haven't used gasoline since the 60's. The switch reduced horsepower but increased fuel efficiency. http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/local/17206801.htm

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I want to add that I am not against the use of ethanol as a short term stop-gap solution as it could help in a crisis, and it is certainly great for the corn farmers, but the last thing that we want is a country or world covered with ethanol powered cars. In fact, for now and the foreseable future, it is not even possible.

 

[Aether]

Okay, I wasn't aware of the higher compression ratios possible, but since these cars are not available and the reality is what we actually have, ethanol probably offers no financial advantage.

Ethanol burns at about 107% the thermal efficiency of gasoline due to the higher allowable compression ratios.

And for anyone who want to do the calculation, when you see the 400 gallon per acre yields for corn, after the processing requirements, multiply by 0.3 [best case for corn] as the net gain. Others claim that the real multiplier is more like 0.1 or 0.2, and some even argue that the multiplier is 0.0 - that ethanol energy is just hidden petroleum energy and it is only competitive due to subsidies.

Per unit of energy output, corn ethanol production uses only about 8% of the petroleum input that gasoline production uses; it does use roughly as much fossil energy but mostly in the form of domestic coal and natural gas. The U.S. government is now investing heavily in the development of cellulosic ethanol production technology which could result in future ethanol production processes where virtually no net fossil energy is used for its production.

In order to replace petroleum with corn-ethanol, it would require about twice the land area of the US to grow the corn.

How do you figure this?

The land area of the U.S. is 3,537,418 sq mi (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108121.html) X 640 acres per mile X 400 gal. ethanol per acre (per year?) = 905,579,008,000 gal. ethanol per year.

In 2004, the United States consumed about 140 billion gallons of gasoline (http://genomicsgtl.energy.gov/biofuels/transportation.shtml )

So, it seems to me that only 0.225 X the land area of the U.S. would be required to replace gasoline with corn ethanol (assuming that 1.5 gallons of ethanol is required to replace 1 gallon of gasoline).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I get that from a 0.3 multiplier for production efficiency [net gain of 120 gallons per acre], and including all oil products. Also, you have to include the reduced energy output from real cars and trucks. Diesel engines are 40% efficient at 139,000 BTUs per gallon.

I should have figured that someone would object to that one. I'll get some links up tonight.

And what we are going to do in the future doesn't count. I've been fed that line for thirty years now, and estimates are almost always far too optimistic. For example, one common [historical] fallacy was that nuclear power would be too cheap to meter.

 

[rcgldr]

The avantage of ethanol in a race car is you can use more of it, the fuel to air ratio can be 2.3 times that of gasoline. At this point you get more power from ethanol than gasoline (not milage wise, just peak power wise). Champ cars (and their predecessors, CART cars from the 90's), also use ethanol and turbo chargers. Nitro methane, as used in fuel dragsters, uses an even higher fuel to air ratio for extreme (but hazardous) power.

Regarding production of ethanol, it's better to use sugar cane. Brazil is currently doing this. Farmers in the USA quit growing sugar cane because it was cheaper to import than to grow it hear.

 

[Aether]

I get that from a 0.3 multiplier for production efficiency, and including all oil products.

Is the average ethanol yield 400 gallons per acre, or 0.3X400 gallons per acre? I think that you (or your sources) are mistaken about the petroleum input per gallon of ethanol, and that this error may be affecting your land-area calculation here.

Also, you have to include the reduced energy output from real cars and trucks.

Since it takes 1.5 gallons of ethanol to replace one gallon of gasoline, I have revised my previous estimate to read "0.225 X the land area of the U.S. would be required to replace gasoline with corn ethanol." This is due to the reduce lower heating value of the fuel, and not due to "reduced energy output from real cars and trucks".

I should have figured that someone would object to that one. I'll get some links up tonight.

Okay.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am running out of time and didn't spot the link that I used the other night, but what I am seeing during a quick search is even worse.

Right now, about 16 percent of the U.S. corn crop is going into ethanol production, but the fuel makes up less than one percent of U.S. demand for liquid fuels, once you take into account the amount of energy needed to produce the ethanol, Stephanopoulos said. Even if all U.S. corn went into ethanol production, there would only be enough for 4 to 5 percent of U.S. annual liquid fuel consumption...

http://www.physorg.com/news90166168.html

There was one paper talking about 3 parts in 10,000 gain, but I must not have understood the context.

The link I am looking for and forgot to save [either .edu or .gov] listed the net energy density as about 25 or 26,000 BTUs per gallon after processing [as a net measure of the gain]. So I will find that or a similar link, and will also link to a recent panel discussion on PBS in which opponents claim the gain is zero if the entire picture is considered. Again, this all applies to corn-ethanol.

These are more in line with my other reference.
http://www.usask.ca/agriculture/caedac/Ethanol/ethtable1.html

They show some optimistic estimates, but the real values for industry are much lower - listed as net gain of 38%. Also, some of these numbers seem inflated compared to other sources.

 

[Aether]

The link I am looking for and forgot to save [either .edu or .gov] listed the net energy density as about 25 or 26,000 BTUs per gallon after processing [as a net measure of the gain]. So I will find that or a similar link, and will also link to a recent panel discussion on PBS in which opponents claim the gain is zero if the entire picture is considered.

This doesn't have anything to do with the amount of land area required to replace gasoline with ethanol. Your estimate of 2X the land area of the U.S. is clearly wrong.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ah, I think I see your point - the gains by not refining petro? What is the basis for your assertion? I haven't had the chance to make my case, and you never addressed the energy needed for all petro.

How much refined product do we buy? Right now we are importing refined products because we don't have enough here, so this is not energy that we pay for with energy.

And I want to pursue this, but clearly it is impossible to convert to ethanol from corn.

Also, as long as there are opponents arguing that the net gain is zero, there is a possibility that no any amount of corn could replace petroleum.

 

[Aether]

What is the basis for your assertion?

Please see: A.E. Farrell et al., "Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Envoronmental Goals", Science, Vol. 311, p. 506-508, 27 January 2006 (www.sciencemag.org[/url]).[QUOTE=A.E. Farrell, et al.]The published results, adjusted for commensurate system boundaries, indicate that [b]with current production methods corn ethanol displaces petroleum use substantially[/b]; only 5 to 26% of the energy content is renewable. The rest is primarily natural gas and coal (Fig. 2)...[b]producing one MJ of ethanol requires far less petroleum than is required to produce one MJ of gasoline[/b] (Fig. 2).[/quote][url]http://rael.berkeley.edu/EBAMM/FarrellEthanolScience012706.pdf[/URL]

 

[BobG]

am running out of time and didn't spot the link that I used the other night, but what I am seeing during a quick search is even worse.

Right now, about 16 percent of the U.S. corn crop is going into ethanol production, but the fuel makes up less than one percent of U.S. demand for liquid fuels, once you take into account the amount of energy needed to produce the ethanol, Stephanopoulos said. Even if all U.S. corn went into ethanol production, there would only be enough for 4 to 5 percent of U.S. annual liquid fuel consumption...

http://www.physorg.com/news90166168.html

There was one paper talking about 3 parts in 10,000 gain, but I must not have understood the context.

The link I am looking for and forgot to save [either .edu or .gov] listed the net energy density as about 25 or 26,000 BTUs per gallon after processing [as a net measure of the gain]. So I will find that or a similar link, and will also link to a recent panel discussion on PBS in which opponents claim the gain is zero if the entire picture is considered. Again, this all applies to corn-ethanol.

These are more in line with my other reference.
http://www.usask.ca/agriculture/caed...ethtable1.html

They show some optimistic estimates, but the real values for industry are much lower - listed as net gain of 38%. Also, some of these numbers seem inflated compared to other sources.

This doesn't have anything to do with the amount of land area required to replace gasoline with ethanol. Your estimate of 2X the land area of the U.S. is clearly wrong.

How much corn you could get if the entire US were devoted to corn growing is irrelevant. Only 3.6% of US land is devoted to growing corn (81.6 million acres out of 2,264 million acres). Corn wouldn't be a very suitable crop for many areas of the country, so you can't just expand how much land is devoted for corn (or sugar cane for that matter) - hence the pessimistic numbers Ivan quoted. With higher corn prices (which ethanol would drive), you'd expect the amount of land devoted to growing corn or sugar cane to increase (109 million acres were devoted to corn in 1931), but it will still be a small percentage of total land in the US.

On the other hand, corn production has increased from 24.5 bushels/acre in 1931 to 148.4 bushels/acre in 2005. Even though the amount of acreage devoted to growing corn has decreased, the total production is 5 times higher than it was in 1931, while the population is a little more than double what it was in 1931.

http://www.ncga.com/news/OurView/pdf/2006/FoodFuelCharts.pdf
http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/US.HTM

If you produced ethanol only engines in addition to gasoline engines, we'd still probably be a net importer of fuel products, but we'd be importing less and have a wider selection of sources.

If you had engines similar to the MIT design, you'd decrease overall gasoline use without forcing users to decide between 3 types of engines (gasoline, deisel, ethanol). You'd keep a lot of the standardization that makes gasoline easier to sell. I'm not sure how important that would be since deisel is a pretty viable fuel, even if not as popular as gasoline.

In other words, ethanol isn't the magical cure to US fuel woes, but it could make them a little less painful.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Okay, I wasn't aware of the higher compression ratios possible, but since these cars are not available and the reality is what we actually have, ethanol probably offers no financial advantage.

And for anyone who want to do the calculation, when you see the 400 gallon per acre yields for corn, after the processing requirements, multiply by 0.3 [best case for corn] as the net gain. Others claim that the real multiplier is more like 0.1 or 0.2, and some even argue that the multiplier is 0.0 - that ethanol energy is just hidden petroleum energy and it is only competitive due to subsidies.

I'm not quoting this to argue the numbers. I want to point out that after the alcohol is taken out of corn there is a lot of useful product left. It cannot be dismissed. If we need products from corn to start with, or any other crop for that matter, then what is the problem with getting the alcohol out of it when it will be grown regardless?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I will be back later today or tonight. I wasn't ready with my links and need time to sort things out. I've been puting together a presentation for something else [related], and much of my information is in my notes at this point.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If we go to CNN.com we can find the article http://www.cnn.com/2007/AUTOS/05/24/cr_mpg_survey/index.html" placed today on the CNN website.

Okay, that is the story referenced in yesterday's report. Apparently the news anchor had bad info as I think it was he who actually said that according to the CS study, ethanol was comparable to gasoline, when in fact their own report tells a different story, but they didn't show the entire report. It seems that what I saw was a leader story for this report. So it was the fault of CNN and CR got it right.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Please see: A.E. Farrell et al., "Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Envoronmental Goals", Science, Vol. 311, p. 506-508, 27 January 2006 (www.sciencemag.org[/url]).[url]http://rael.berkeley.edu/EBAMM/FarrellEthanolScience012706.pdf[/URL][/QUOTE]

I still need to take some time to review this - till now I have been trying to find a great link that I forgot to log and can't find. But for now, this gives an overview of the debate.

[quote]...The stickiest question about ethanol is this: Does making alcohol from grain or plant waste really create any new energy?

The answer, of course, depends upon whom you ask. The ethanol lobby claims there's a 30 percent net gain in BTUs from ethanol made from corn. Other boosters, including Woolsey, claim there are huge energy gains (as much as 700 percent) to be had by making ethanol from grass.

But the ethanol critics have shown that the industry calculations are bogus. David Pimentel, a professor of ecology at Cornell University who has been studying grain alcohol for 20 years, and Tad Patzek, an engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley, co-wrote a recent report that estimates that making ethanol from corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel itself actually contains.

The two scientists calculated all the fuel inputs for ethanol production—from the diesel fuel for the tractor planting the corn, to the fertilizer put in the field, to the energy needed at the processing plant—and found that ethanol is a net energy-loser. According to their calculations, ethanol contains about 76,000 BTUs per gallon, but producing that ethanol from corn takes about 98,000 BTUs. For comparison, a gallon of gasoline contains about 116,000 BTUs per gallon. But making that gallon of gas—from drilling the well, to transportation, through refining—requires around 22,000 BTUs.

In addition to their findings on corn, they determined that making ethanol from switch grass requires 50 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol yields, wood biomass 57 percent more, and sunflowers 118 percent more. The best yield comes from soybeans, but they, too, are a net loser, requiring 27 percent more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produced. In other words, more ethanol production will increase America's total energy consumption, not decrease it. (Pimentel has not taken money from the oil or refining industries. Patzek runs the UC Oil Consortium, which does research on oil and is funded by oil companies. His ethanol research is not funded by the oil or refining industries.)[continued][/quote]
[url]http://alt-e.blogspot.com/2005/07/alternative-fuel-ethanol-fuel.html[/url]

Also, sure, it is possible to divert the energy demand to other sources, but this does not make ethanol truly competitive as an alternative. It becomes more of an energy carrier rather than an energy source. So in this sense ethanol would be more like hydrogen, in which case we might as well just make hydrogen. And we don't need to load-up the grid driving alternative options. This is one point on which even Russ and I agree.

Also, BobG's quote
[quote]How much corn you could get if the entire US were devoted to corn growing is irrelevant. Only 3.6% of US land is devoted to growing corn [/quote]

Combined with an optimistic estimate given earlier
[quote]Right now, about 16 percent of the U.S. corn crop is going into ethanol production, but the fuel makes up less than one percent of U.S. demand for liquid fuels, once you take into account the amount of energy needed to produce the ethanol, Stephanopoulos said. Even if all U.S. corn went into ethanol production, there would only be enough for 4 to 5 percent of U.S. annual liquid fuel consumption...[/quote]

we come up with a demand of ~20 or 25 X 3.6% = 72% to 90% of the land area of the US, so already we are close to my statement of twice the land area without getting specific about where all of the petroleum energy goes, and at what efficiency. But it is true, when I figured this I was not assuming that we in effect cheat by diverting the energy of processing to other sources as this really doesn't solve the basic problem.

Oh yes, apparently that number of 3 parts in 10,000 gain [0.03%] was for cellulosic ethanol from corn, which I know nothing about at this point.

Also, note that the values will vary quite a bit from source to source, including the raw energy densities.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

First, in spite of prior objections, I maintain that energy is a perfectly good way to compare fuels as long as the efficiency is known for each application. After all, in the end, sooner or later, we have to talk about the work done. This is ultimately what we have to compare. And the increased efficiency wrt ethanol in high compression engines does not apply to what we are actually driving, which was my point of reference. The CS/CNN report showed a 27% decrease in mileage in going from gasoline to ethanol, and if we take the ratio of the energy content of each as 125,000 and 76,000 BTUs per gallon respectively (76/125), we might expect about a 39% decrease, which isn't too bad as a ball park estimate given no other specifics. And of course we find significant differences in the raw energy estimates as well as differences in the fuel quality at the pump that could account for this, in addition to any efficiency variances between fuels. Not to mention that the test may have had a large margin of error.

Here are some more good links including:

Ethanol fuel from corn faulted as 'unsustainable subsidized food burning' in analysis by Cornell scientist

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.html

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html

Overall, we use about 100 quads [quadrillion BTUs] of energy each year from all sources, and in 1998 [easiest reference], 38.8% of this energy came from petroleum.

We can consider the typical efficiencies of diesel to include most petroleum energy [when taken with the estimates earlier for the ethanol needed for gasoline], and then consider how much ethanol we need to replace this. In fact we might just be generous and assume that ethanol would be as efficient as diesel as a starting point.

The total demand for refined products is listed here
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbbl_a.htm

For 2005, I count about 3 thousand million barrels of fuel oil at 42 gallons per barrel, and assuming 139,000 BTUs per gallon, we get a total of 1.75E16 BTUs. Now, if we assume the same efficiencies for ethanol at [76,000 BTUs per gallon] as we get from the fuel oil, we get 2.3E11 gallons of ethanol, and at 30% yields we need 7.8E11 gallons, or about 1.7E9 acres of corn to replace diesel fuel and oil used for heat. This would be in addition to the ethanol needed for gasoline, so as you can see, we can easily get to absurdly large numbers and about twice the land area of the US at 2.2E9 acres. But again, this assumes that we don't steal energy from other sources to make the ethanol. And of course the potential error is fairly large, but we are working in units of nuclear bombs anyway, and we can get close enough for perspective. Also, we assumed the ethanol would be as efficient as diesel, and today it's not, so we might add as much as another 30% to our 1.7 billion acres. And lastly, I don't know of any large trucks that run on ethanol.

Now should we consider aviation?

When I used the word deception, I didn't mean to imply that there is a conspiracy. No doubt most scientists and enthusiasts are sincere in supporting their position in this issue, whatever that may be, but the idea that ethanol is a real option is clearly a fallacy at this time. And we need to think about the options that exist today.

Ethanol from corn may be an alternative fuel, but it is not an alternative.

 

[Aether]

Also, sure, it is possible to divert the energy demand to other sources, but this does not make ethanol truly competitive as an alternative. It becomes more of an energy carrier rather than an energy source. So in this sense ethanol would be more like hydrogen, in which case we might as well just make hydrogen. And we don't need to load-up the grid driving alternative options. This is one point on which even Russ and I agree.

Ethanol today could be considered largely an energy carrier rather than an energy source, but:

Our best point estimate for average performance today is that corn ethanol reduces petroleum use by about 95% on an energetic basis and reduces GHG emissions only moderately, by about 13%.

Ethanol today is effective at reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil today. Ethanol may also have a future as a primary energy source.

...the idea that ethanol is a real option is clearly a fallacy at this time. And we need to think about the options that exist today.

If you have an alternative in mind (biodiesel?) then please compare it to ethanol directly.

Although biofuels offer a diverse range of promising alternatives, ethanol constitutes 99% of all biofuels in the United States.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Ivan you haven't commented on my first post. My point is that you cannot count all of the fuel it takes to raise a crop since that crop is used for other things even after the alcohol is taken out. If you intend to calculate the amount of fuel it takes to get a unit of ethanol in the manner that they are in your post #39 then you have to assume that no crop was raised prior to ethanol production which is completely false and that no other products come from the crop once the ethanol is taken out which is also completely false. I do not wish to argue for or against ethanol from crops I just want to point out that the methods arrived at figuring gains/or losses are bogus.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ethanol today could be considered largely an energy carrier rather than an energy source, but: Ethanol today is effective at reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil today. Ethanol may also have a future as a primary energy source.

If you have an alternative in mind (biodiesel?) then please compare it to ethanol directly.

Estimates and three decades of testing indicates that by using algae, we can produce as much as a net 10,000 gallons of biodiesel per acre-year - say 7000 if we stay conservative and allow for a 30% processing demand. See the aquatic species program [in addition to plenty of more recent links found with a simple search] which predicted that algae could be competitive when diesel was at about $2 a gallon, or twice 1996 levels. [see part ii, page 4]
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/biodiesel_from_algae.pdf

Not that we would want to, but a simple estimate suggests that we could replace all sources of energy - petro, coal, NG, hydro, nuclear, wind, solar - with about 400 X 400 miles of land and or water. In the process, algae can be grown while cleaning up CO2 or other industrial, agricultural, or municipal emissions or waste.

From everything that I have seen on the web and in my own testing, it was just a matter of time and price. It appears that algae became competitive [hit the break even point] about mid 2004 at ~40 a barrel for crude. It should be a viable option at today's prices.

Also, keep in mind that much of the literature focuses on making algae competitive at much lower prices, which it isn't, but today this is likely not an issue.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan you haven't commented on my first post. My point is that you cannot count all of the fuel it takes to raise a crop since that crop is used for other things even after the alcohol is taken out. If you intend to calculate the amount of fuel it takes to get a unit of ethanol in the manner that they are in your post #39 then you have to assume that no crop was raised prior to ethanol production which is completely false and that no other products come from the crop once the ethanol is taken out which is also completely false. I do not wish to argue for or against ethanol from crops I just want to point out that the methods arrived at figuring gains/or losses are bogus.

We can't play shell games: We have to look at the real costs to produce what we need. We have to assume that we create new farmland to produce the fuel since we clearly don't have enough now [unless we plan to stop producing food]. And byproducts are great, but when we start talking about twice the land area of the US, they don't count for much. It is clearly not a viable option in the big picture. But as I stated earlier, it might be used to ease the crunch as it is today.

I also suggest that even if we could grow enough corn, due to the amount needed, most byproducts would not be valuable due to supply and demand. This has already happened in the biodiesel market. One byproduct is pure glycerin, which now has relatively little value due to the amount of biodiesel produced.

However, as a best case perhaps, a byproduct of algae is... algae. After getting the biodiesel, in principle it can be used to produce ethanol, and then hydrogen, but I don't know if this has ever been done in a practical way. Also, people are working with algae for hydrogen and ethanol production alone, so the picture is bigger than just biodiesel, but down the road - another "future" option. Still, one important concept wrt algae is the carbon all goes somewhere - either as sugars for ethanol, or hydrocarbons [fatty acids] for biodiesel. As it turns out, the most efficient path today is for hydrocarbon production.

The residual mash can be used as a high quality feed for cattle, or as fertilizer for other food or algae crops.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh yes, 400 X 400 miles X 640 acres/ sq. mile X 10,000 gallons/acre X 118300 BTUs per gallon = 120 quads.

So maybe 80 quads in practice. Again, we use about 100 quads from all souces, and when you sort it out a bit, the efficiencies don't change the picture greatly. And to replace just petroleum, but all petroleum, which unlike ethanol, biodiesel could since it could be used in the trucking and other industries [and is currently being tested for aviation], we would only need about 39% of this, or about 250 X 250 miles of land or water [good farmland not needed]

But the point of this thread was to show that based on the technology that we have today, ethanol, and esp ethanol from corn, is not a long term solution to the energy problem. Some even argue that it is part of the problem [a net loser].

Late edits: Going to back a point made earlier, we can also reduce this requirement [land needed for algae] as we do use energy to transport crude from other counties, and then to refine it here. I think the avg chain efficiency for petro fuels is a little under 80%, so we can legitimately derate the requirements accordingly. I need to check on the exact number though; that is about what I think it was...

 

[Averagesupernova]

We can't play shell games: We have to look at the real costs to produce what we need. We have to assume that we create new farmland to produce the fuel since we clearly don't have enough now [unless we plan to stop producing food]. And byproducts are great, but when we start talking about twice the land area of the US, they don't count for much. It is clearly not a viable option in the big picture. But as I stated earlier, it might be used to ease the crunch as it is today.

I also suggest that even if we could grow enough corn, due to the amount needed, most byproducts would not be valuable due to supply and demand. This has already happened in the biodiesel market. One byproduct is pure glycerin, which now has relatively little value due to the amount of biodiesel produced.

However, as a best case perhaps, a byproduct of algae is... algae. After getting the biodiesel, in principle it can be used to produce ethanol, and then hydrogen, but I don't know if this has ever been done in a practical way. Also, people are working with algae for hydrogen and ethanol production alone, so the picture is bigger than just biodiesel, but down the road - another "future" option. Still, one important concept wrt algae is the carbon all goes somewhere - either as sugars for ethanol, or hydrocarbons [fatty acids] for biodiesel. As it turns out, the most efficient path today is for hydrocarbon production.

The residual mash can be used as a high quality feed for cattle, or as fertilizer for other food or algae crops.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'play shell games'. The simple fact is that X acres of crop will be raised regardless of whether we take ethanol out or not. So until ethanol usage shorts some other product that requires the carbohydrate, NOT taking alcohol out is the most inefficient way to go. Residual mash left from ethanol from corn is also a high quality source of feed for cattle. It's a good protien source commonly known as distillers grain. I'm betting that there is a lot more residual left from corn after distillation than alcohol. We all need to remember that we need to eat too which has always been and hopefully always will be the main role of agriculture.
-
I'm certainly not saying that ethanol from corn is a cure all. Obviously it's not. My point is that the method arrived at determining the net gain/loss is bogus and you can't/won't see it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The fact is, already the use of ethanol has doubled the corn prices - food and energy are in competition, and we see the result. And we have barely scratched the surface.

Where is that benefit again? Earlier I posted a Reuters quote showing that chichen prices have started to rise [up 6 cents a pound for wholesale at that time], and there is upward pressure on beef prices, all because of ethanol. There are already a million [figuratively speaking] uses for corn and corn products, and anything using these products will be affected.

And it is not true that demand for ethanol will have no impact on how much corn we grow - supply and demand says otherwise.

 

[Averagesupernova]

I would bet a years pay that corn prices will not stay at current levels for any length of time. And I'm not talking about a 5 to 10 year trend. If they do, everything else will inflate along with. In 1996 corn spiked well over $5.00 per bushel. It happens every so often. You are talking very short term. Take a look at corn prices over the last 30 years and you'll see what I mean. Food is already in competition with energy. It takes energy to get food and until everyone moves back to small farms and things go back to manual labor it will remain so.
-
Anyways, that is not my argument, so please don't even bother. My point is (which you've ignored) the method used to determine the net gain/loss of energy in ethanol production. Crops will continue to be grown as they always have so the same amount of fuel will be expended to do so with or without taking the ethanol out. It makes me wonder what else is overlooked in all of the other energy source schemes being dreamed up.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You seem to forget that we need the corn grown today. This is not a surplus grown for no reason.

The increased cost of corn is attributed directly to ethanol, but the other market forces still apply, so we would expect to see tremendously high spikes in the future if ethanol production increases significantly. When we apply the law of supply and demand, and we create a huge new demand, the prices will certainly rise accordingly. This is basic economics.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Another advantage that biodiesel has today [without even growing algae yet] is that the feedstock base is highly diversified - we can and do use many different kinds of plants as a source- so the impact can be spread out over many different products. For example, in some areas the source is canola, others cotton seed, and in many areas we make it from soybeans. Rapeseed is another strong source of feedstock today.

I think the majority of biodiesel in the US is coming from soybeans right now, but this is driven by demand. As the demand increases, more crops will come online with greater capacity. In principle it could help ALL farmers, and not just corn farmers.

I know that Willie Nelson [BioWillie] drives a Mercedes that runs on cotton seed biodiesel.

He has a sticker on the front window: No War Required.