Ethanol Deception - Is It Really Better Than Gasoline?

[Aether]

there is only one crop that can produce enough biofuel per acre-year to satisfy the need for crude oil: Algae. Any other option will require more land for fuel crops than we have land..

...If you want to present these as claims then you will have to defend them...

It's basic math...Acreage required to provide world transportation energy from corn ethanol: (100 quadrillion BTU / 76,000 BTU/gal) / 400 gallons/acre = 3.3 billion acres, or 13.3 million square km.

Acreage required to provide world transportation energy from sugar cane: 1.9 billion acres (7.7 million square km)

The entire North American continent is only about 26 million square km, so about 1/2 of the continent would be required using corn ethanol.

Then what basic math shows here is that we have more than enough land in North America alone to produce enough corn ethanol to satisfy world transportation energy demand, right?

By contrast the biodiesel contains about 120000 BTU/gal, and yield/acre using algae feedstock is about 5000 gal/acre. So it has roughly 20x the energy yield per acre as corn ethanol, requiring about 1/20th the area.

Maybe so, but farm land is not the only input required for biofuel production. Concentrated CO2 is an essential input for economical biodiesel production from algae, and this is a scarce resource. Aeration can provide the CO2 required for biodiesel production from algae, but probably not cost effectively.

...ethanol constitutes 99% of all biofuels in the United States. -- http://rael.berkeley.edu/EBAMM/FarrellEthanolScience012706.pdf

It is interesting to note that corn crops not only utilize sunlight for photosynthesis, but they also utilize wind power for aeration.

 

[joema]

Then what basic math shows here is that we have more than enough land in North America alone to produce enough corn ethanol to satisfy world transportation energy demand, right?

That's half the total land surface area, not all of which is arable. Much of the land area is mountainous or otherwise unsuited for crops.

Arable land in North America is about 1/8th the total land surface area, forests about 1/3.

If you mowed down all the forests to plant corn, and didn't use any corn for food production, plus diverted all other food crop acreage to corn, it still wouldn't produce enough ethanol.

This was discussed in the January 2007 Scientific American. They concluded if 100% of current U.S. corn production was diverted to ethanol production, it would supply only a tiny fraction of U.S. transportation energy. The same is true on a global scale.

 

[Aether]

That's half the total land surface area, not all of which is arable. Much of the land area is mountainous or otherwise unsuited for crops.

Arable land in North America is about 1/8th the total land surface area, forests about 1/3.

If you mowed down all the forests to plant corn, and didn't use any corn for food production, plus diverted all other food crop acreage to corn, it still wouldn't produce enough ethanol.

Maybe so, but that's not what you said before.

This was discussed in the January 2007 Scientific American. They concluded if 100% of current U.S. corn production was diverted to ethanol production, it would supply only a tiny fraction of U.S. transportation energy.

Your example above requires North America to supply world demand for transportation energy, but the Scientific American article is talking about U.S. corn production satisfying U.S. demand for transportation energy.

The same is true on a global scale.

Where does the Scientific American article say that?

It would be nice if corn ethanol alone could meet the current world demand for transportation energy, but I agree that it can't. U.S. energy security requires that we reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This can be done by a combination of conservation and alternative energy production. Corn ethanol is playing an increasingly significant role as an alternative energy source, and it already plays a far more significant role than biodiesel from algae (if aeration is required) will ever play.

 

[joema]

Your example above requires North America to supply world demand for transportation energy, but the Scientific American article is talking about U.S. corn production satisfying U.S. demand for transportation energy.

My example does NOT require North America to supply world transportation energy, it was simply a familiar geographic illustration. E.g, the same acreage would occupy 134% of Europe, or 100% of Antarctica or 75% of South America. It doesn't mean you'd be growing corn in Antarctica. It simply illustrates the poor yield of current feedstocks requires continent-size acreage to produce enough biofuel to replace current sources.

Where does the Scientific American article say that?

Physics doesn't change when crossing a national border. The yield/acre may change modestly based on climate, but not sufficiently to alter applying the conclusions to a global scale. If the goal is actually solving the problem (vs making a marginal contribution) conventional biofuel feedstocks are very inadequate from a areal yield standpoint, no matter which ones are considered, or where they are grown.

U.S. energy security requires that we reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This can be done by a combination of conservation and alternative energy production. Corn ethanol is playing an increasingly significant role as an alternative energy source, and it already plays a far more significant role than biodiesel from algae...

The question is what alternative energy source is scalable to the vast industrial level to make a major difference.

Ivan's point was the yield-per-acre of all other current feedstocks (besides algae) is too low to achieve this. That doesn't mean corn, soy, etc. can't be a marginal contributor. But if you want to actually solve the problem, it requires much higher yield per acre.

It's possible there may be unforeseen problems with biodiesel production from algae that prevent scaling it up sufficiently, but at least the areal yield is there. By contrast other conventional feedstocks cannot possibly provide enough energy in the available acreage.

 

[Aether]

My example does NOT require North America to supply world transportation energy, it was simply a familiar geographic illustration. E.g, the same acreage would occupy 134% of Europe, or 100% of Antarctica or 75% of South America. It doesn't mean you'd be growing corn in Antarctica. It simply illustrates the poor yield of current feedstocks requires continent-size acreage to produce enough biofuel to replace current sources.

What I am saying is that your example and the Scientific American article aren't comparable. You should restate your example in the same context as the Scientific American article if you want to compare the two.

Physics doesn't change when crossing a national border. The yield/acre may change modestly based on climate, but not sufficiently to alter applying the conclusions to a global scale.

Per capita energy consumption for transportation does.

If the goal is actually solving the problem (vs making a marginal contribution) conventional biofuel feedstocks are very inadequate from a areal yield standpoint, no matter which ones are considered, or where they are grown.

Maybe so. In that case, energy conservation may have to make up the difference.

The question is what alternative energy source is scalable to the vast industrial level to make a major difference.

Ivan's point was the yield-per-acre of all other current feedstocks (besides algae) is too low to achieve this. That doesn't mean corn, soy, etc. can't be a marginal contributor. But if you want to actually solve the problem, it requires much higher yield per acre.

Either that, or effective energy conservation.

It's possible there may be unforeseen problems with biodiesel production from algae that prevent scaling it up sufficiently, but at least the areal yield is there.

The problems with biodiesel production from algae are not unforeseen. The aquatic biospecies program was closed down in 1998, and their website says that this subject is no longer a research priority. There has been no evidence presented here to show that there is any real yield (e.g., positive net energy) for biodiesel from algae grown using aeration.

By contrast other conventional feedstocks cannot possibly provide enough energy in the available acreage.

The real contrast here is that "...ethanol constitutes 99% of all biofuels in the United States", and biodiesel from algae grown using aeration contributes nothing.

 

[joema]

What I am saying is that your example and the Scientific American article aren't comparable. You should restate your example in the same context as the Scientific American article if you want to compare the two.

The issue which Scientific American highlighted (limited ethanol yield from current feedstocks making it impossible to supply a major % of U.S. transportation energy) also applies on a global basis for exactly the same reason.

Whether on a U.S. or global basis, there's a given need for transportation energy. Likewise on a U.S. or global basis, there's a given amount of available, arable land to produce this. For the exact same reason that ethanol cannot provide a major % of U.S. transportation energy, it likewise cannot provide a major % of world transportation energy: the yield per acre is too low for the available land and energy requirement.

Ivan's point was only a much higher yield feedstock is scalable to meet the necessary demand, and algae is one of the only (maybe THE only) feedstock with the necessary yield.

Per capita energy consumption for transportation does.

Per capita energy consumption is not relevant to the issue, which is whether any biofuel can be scaled upward sufficiently to supply a major % of U.S. or global transportation energy. It's not per-capita consumption that matters, it's total consumption.

In that case, energy conservation may have to make up the difference.

The difference is VASTLY too much for conservation to make up the difference. That doesn't mean conservation is wrong or shouldn't be used, only that it's inadequate to compensate for the insufficient yield from current biofuel feedstocks.

As the Scientific American article highlighted, ethanol (for example) can only supply a few % of U.S. transportation energy. On a global basis, the situation is similar. This means conservation would have to make up at least 80% of the current consumption, which is about 100 quadrillion BTU/year. It's simply not possible to reduce global transportation energy consumption by 80% via normal conservation measures within a timeframe meaningful to the problem. It would require a total restructuring of all society, akin to an asteroid hitting the earth, a nuclear war, or a global plague which decimates humankind.

The real contrast here is that "...ethanol constitutes 99% of all biofuels in the United States", and biodiesel from algae grown using aeration contributes nothing.

The issue is NOT what % of transportation energy is currently supplied by a given biofuel feedstock. Rather it's what biofuel feedstock (if any) can be scaled to the gigantic industrial level required to supply a major % of U.S. or world transportation energy. With ethanol from corn, soy, switchgrass, etc. it's clearly impossible. Algae at least is theoretically possible from a yield standpoint, plus can be grown on non-arable land so it doesn't displace existing crops.

That doesn't mean biodiesel from algae is the solution or is guaranteed to work. However ethanol from conventional feedstocks are guaranteed to NOT work, i.e, provide a major % of U.S. or global transportation energy.

 

[Aether]

Ivan's point was only a much higher yield feedstock is scalable to meet the necessary demand, and algae is one of the only (maybe THE only) feedstock with the necessary yield.

As far as I know algae has only been shown to produce a high yield per acre-year under laboratory conditions where it is was grown in a sealed container, in an ideal climate (good insolation), and supplied with concentrated CO2 from the exhaust of a coal-fired power plant. I expect that corn, and just about any other crop, would produce a spectacularly increased yield per acre-year under similar conditions. It seems reasonable to try and exploit available sources of concentrated CO2 for biofuel production, perhaps using algae, but this is not what Ivan is trying to do. He is trying to grow algae using aeration. Unless and until someone here explicitly claims, and then cites a credible reference (or makes a plausible argument) to substantiate that claim, that there is a positive net energy balance for biodiesel production from algae grown using aeration, then we should dismiss that claim. Don't you agree?

Per capita energy consumption is not relevant to the issue, which is whether any biofuel can be scaled upward sufficiently to supply a major % of U.S. or global transportation energy. It's not per-capita consumption that matters, it's total consumption.

The SA article presents an analysis of U.S. biofuel supply and demand, but not world biofuel supply and demand. This website presents data showing that there is a great variation in per capita energy consumption from one country to another: http://www.hubbertpeak.com/nations/percapita.htm. It is not reasonable to assume that the analysis presented in the SA article for U.S. biofuel supply and demand should also apply to the world as a whole.

The difference is VASTLY too much for conservation to make up the difference.

When the petroleum supply finally runs out, conservation can and will make up the difference. .

That doesn't mean conservation is wrong or shouldn't be used, only that it's inadequate to compensate for the insufficient yield from current biofuel feedstocks.

Ha ha...conservation is infinitely adequate for the task, I assure you.

As the Scientific American article highlighted, ethanol (for example) can only supply a few % of U.S. transportation energy. On a global basis, the situation is similar.

Per capita energy consumption in the U.S. is 697 times greater than it is in Afghanistan for example, and average per capita energy consumption in the rest of the world is several times lower than it is in the U.S.. So, again, it is not reasonable to assume that the analysis presented in the SA article for U.S. biofuel supply and demand should also apply to the world as a whole.

This means conservation would have to make up at least 80% of the current consumption, which is about 100 quadrillion BTU/year. It's simply not possible to reduce global transportation energy consumption by 80% via normal conservation measures within a timeframe meaningful to the problem.

Oh yes it is possible, and it will happen when the oil runs out. btw, I am not just talking about "normal" (I assume that you mean "voluntary") conservation measures, but also involuntary conservation measures and technological advances.

It would require a total restructuring of all society, akin to an asteroid hitting the earth, a nuclear war, or a global plague which decimates humankind.

Good. The sooner the better. I doubt that the advance of science in general and Moore's law in particular will be greatly hindered by such a restructuring. So what if we all wind up either riding bicycles or busses to work at some point in the future?

The issue is NOT what % of transportation energy is currently supplied by a given biofuel feedstock. Rather it's what biofuel feedstock (if any) can be scaled to the gigantic industrial level required to supply a major % of U.S. or world transportation energy. With ethanol from corn, soy, switchgrass, etc. it's clearly impossible.

I will not discuss "world transportation energy" with you using only the SA article as a basis. It is not reasonable to assume that the analysis presented in the SA article for U.S. biofuel supply and demand should also apply to the world as a whole.

Algae at least is theoretically possible from a yield standpoint, plus can be grown on non-arable land so it doesn't displace existing crops.

You keep talking in terms of "areal yield" and ignoring what I have said about the requirements for concentrated CO2 vs. aeration to produce biodiesel from algae. I am quite sure that fission has a vastly superior "areal yield" to biodiesel from algae in terms of kWh/acre-year. Don't you agree?

That doesn't mean biodiesel from algae is the solution or is guaranteed to work.

Ivan claims otherwise. He is claiming that algae can satisfy the need for crude oil. I have asked him to preface his remarks with "I think", or something like that, but so far he hasn't done that. So, I reject his claims as they stand. Don't you agree?

there is only one crop that can produce enough biofuel per acre-year to satisfy the need for crude oil: Algae.

However ethanol from conventional feedstocks are guaranteed to NOT work, i.e, provide a major % of U.S. or global transportation energy.

Ethanol displaces a marginal % of petroleum consumption which is useful, and this will become increasingly important as the supply of petroleum dwindles away. Who has claimed otherwise?

 

[Astronuc]

The anaerobic bacterium C. ljungdahlii, recently discovered in commercial chicken wastes, can produce ethanol from single-carbon sources including synthesis gas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen that can be generated from the partial combustion of either fossil fuels or biomass. Use of these bacteria to produce ethanol from synthesis gas has progressed to the pilot plant stage at the BRI Energy facility in Fayetteville, Arkansas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clostridium#Commercial_uses

http://www.brienergy.com/pages/process01.html

 

[Astronuc]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/business/30ethanol.html

NEVADA, Iowa, Sept. 24 — The ethanol boom of recent years — which spurred a frenzy of distillery construction, record corn prices, rising food prices and hopes of a new future for rural America — may be fading.

Only last year, farmers here spoke of a biofuel gold rush, and they rejoiced as prices for ethanol and the corn used to produce it set records.

But companies and farm cooperatives have built so many distilleries so quickly that the ethanol market is suddenly plagued by a glut, in part because the means to distribute it have not kept pace. The average national ethanol price on the spot market has plunged 30 percent since May, with the decline escalating sharply in the last few weeks.

“The end of the ethanol boom is possibly in sight and may already be here,” said Neil E. Harl, an economics professor emeritus at Iowa State University who lectures on ethanol and is a consultant for producers. “This is a dangerous time for people who are making investments.”

While generous government support is expected to keep the output of ethanol fuel growing, the poorly planned overexpansion of the industry raises questions about its ability to fulfill the hopes of President Bush and other policy makers to serve as a serious antidote to the nation’s heavy reliance on foreign oil.

And if the bust becomes worse, candidates for president could be put on the spot to pledge even more federal support for the industry, particularly here in Iowa, whose caucus in January is the first contest in the presidential nominating process.

Two problems with corn-based ethanol - it's subject to fluctations in price, so price stability is an issue, and since more corn (one of two basic grains for animals raised for food) is used for ethanol, the price for foods based on corn increases.

 

[turbo]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/business/30ethanol.html


Two problems with corn-based ethanol - it's subject to fluctations in price, so price stability is an issue, and since more corn (one of two basic grains for animals raised for food) is used for ethanol, the price for foods based on corn increases.

There are people in this state pushing the sales of corn-fed stoves to heat homes. That's a pretty dumb thing to buy into, since corn has lots of better uses, and an increase in anyone of them can drive the price of corn (for heating) through the roof, as can a poor crop year. In a state that is almost completely forested, it's a no-brainer to get an efficient wood stove for heating, but still, people are buying corn-fueled stoves. Duh! People want to reduce their dependence on oil products price-controlled by OPEC and the domestic oil cartel, only to rush into the clutches of ConAgra, ADM, and other giant corporations controlling domestic agriculture.

 

[Astronuc]

Study: Ethanol Worse for Climate Than Gasoline

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18784732

All Things Considered, February 7, 2008 · At first blush, biofuels such as corn ethanol and soybean diesel seem like they would be great from the standpoint of global warming. The crops soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow, and that balances out the carbon dioxide they produce when they're burned. But until now, nobody has fully analyzed all the ripple effects of this industry. And Tim Searchinger, a visiting scholar at Princeton University, says those effects turn out to be huge.

"The simplest explanation is that when we divert our corn or soybeans to fuel, if people around the world are going to continue to eat the same amount that they're already eating, you have to replace that food somewhere else," Searchinger says.

Searchinger and his colleagues looked globally to figure out where the new cropland is coming from, as American farmers produce fuel crops where they used to grow food. The answer is that biofuel production here is driving agriculture to expand in other parts of the world.

"That's done in a significant part by burning down forests, plowing up grasslands. That releases a great deal of carbon dioxide," Searchinger says.

In fact, Searchinger's group's study, published online by Science magazine, shows those actions end up releasing huge amounts of carbon dioxide. The study finds that over a 30-year span, biofuels end up contributing twice as much carbon dioxide to the air as that amount of gasoline would, when you add in the global effects.

Unintended consequences.