Is Ethanol good for the environment?
Ethanol has some real downsides that the government would like to cover up. The administration is forcing it onto CA. after they had to legislate against that nasty MTBE. Ethanol is a bigger smog producer, higher in NoX and big Corporate welfare for ADM. Need any other reasons to not use Ethanol. This is good reading, on who is getting paid off to keep Ethanol alive.
http://www.foe.org/powerpolitics/8.26.pdf
http://www.foe.org/powerpolitics/8.26.pdf
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Cornell's Pimental
found that 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one
gallon of ethanol, and one gallon of ethanol has an energy value of 77,000 BTUs, so there is a net
energy loss of 54,000 BTUs in the production of
one gallon of ethanol.
http://www.foe.org/policy/58e4e.pdf
As for data on the subject, please provide a link to an actual WHITE PAPER. That summary is totally void of any detail and clearly has an organizational bias.
With actual data, we can discuss the programs in place that have greatly improved the growing & refining process. Large steps forward have been made to reduce the environmental impact and to deliver a higher overall energy yield.
Also, don't forget similar efforts have been made with the production of biodiesel too.
JOHN
ethanol production does not enhance energy security, is not a renewable energy source, is not an economical fuel, and does not ensure clean air...its production uses land suitable for crop production and causes environmental degradation."
http://www.taxpayer.com/ltts/sk/April28-04.htm
You keep Ethanol in the Midwest we don't want it in CA. It is not a left right biased issue, it is a "buying votes from the farmers" issue. If you don't consider "Friends of the Earth" a viable Organization, you will probably continue to believe that it is not costing more to produce than it is worth. The only positive spin you will find on Ethanol is from the folks that are profiteering from it.
“If the ethanol producers and the corn growers weren’t benefiting from this, we wouldn’t be doing it,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., last week. “There’s no policy reason to do this.”
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540967/
SHOW ME THE DATA!
Being shoveled digested information serves no purpose but to entertain. Not knowing how the conclusion was come to is clearly evidence of a non-objective stance.
JOHN
What is the 52 cents per gallon subsidy? That comes out of my taxes. you should be paying that with every gallon you purchase, not me. As a MN farmer I can tell you the only way to plant corn year after year is with huge amounts of chemical fertilizer. That in itself is very harmful to the ground water in YOUR state. ADM does not care if you have lousy water. My property was right on the Long Prairie River and we refused to use any chemicals that would leech into the river. Only the stuff our cattle produced. You will have a hard time finding data that is current because it is hidden in a cloak of deception. No one in the business is going to tell you they are spending 2 bucks to produce a bucks worth of Ethanol. Not when Uncle Sam has a 5 billion dollar subsidy sitting on the table for the next 8 years. Alaska got an exemption because it caused way more ice fog in the winter during testing. I'm surprised you don't see more in Minneapolis in the winter.
Yet, you believe the info you have.
What's wrong with that picture?
The EPA and select colleges perform studies of that nature all the time. They publicly publish their findings. Let's see those.
JOHN
Nothing is wrong with that picture. Cornell University's study is the only viable study that has been made public. Show me a study where Ethanol is making money and does not have an adverse environmental impact. Here is an article touting the virtues of Ethanol. What's wrong with this picture?
More than 60% of the world’s supply of ethanol is estimated to be derived from sugar, with Brazil – a sugarcane growing country – in the lead.
I see nothing wrong with clearing the rainforset to plant Sugarcane, duh!!!
http://wardsauto.com/ar/auto_old_idea_made/
You are the one insisting the ALL OR NONE approach, not me.
Clearly, we have different goals.
JOHN
Now let me research Biodiesel for you.....
http://www.qctimes.com/qcbizjournal/internal.php?story_id=1030270- &l=1&t=Agriculture&c=93,1030270
Where did you get that impression? I already pay higher prices for fuel in CA than you do. I don't want the added burden of transporting Ethanol for some contrived plan to pull the Midwest out of the doldrums. I am looking for viable alternatives to our dependence on foriegn oil. If we are going to use our coal and Natural gas to produce Ethanol, why not just burn the Natural Gas in the car to start with. Why pass it through several layers of bureaucracy first and come out with a less environmentally sound product. That is like making hydrogen from Natural Gas. Why bother, just burn the gas to start with. There is no way we will eliminate foreign oil in our lifetime. I am all for reducing the consumption. There are too many opposing forces at every step. No matter what technology or resource is used someone is not going to like it and put roadblocks in the way. Just as you would block the use of diesel because of your bias toward hybrid/ethanol burning vehicles. I think your use of those resources is great. You get great mileage from your Prius and I applaud that. There are other options that are good also. I want them all to have an equal chance to succeed.
I can make a statement here that Ethanol is really good and 100 percent renewable and great for the environment.
Hmmm, it seems I didn't post any supporting data (and I'm not talking supporting opinions but rather scientific data).
Yet under the rules most people seem to use here, that statement must obiously be true.
For the record, the above is in jest, I have no position on ethanol ... because I haven't seen conclusive data either way. However I do have a position on scientific evidence... I am enthusiastically in favor of it!
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.- html
However, the study is available (though probably not on line):
"His findings will be published in September, 2001 in the forthcoming Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology "
BTW, this information is thus 3 years old...
Here is a pretty good report that lists lots of references, if anyone wants to persue the topic:
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf
The following is the conclusion (since it is an engergy department study, it is in the public domain and not copywrited).
"We conclude that the NEV of corn-ethanol is positive
when fertilizers are produced by modern processing
plants, corn is converted in modern ethanol facilities,
and farmers achieve average corn yields. Our NEV
estimate of over 21,000 Btu per gallon could be
considered conservative, since it was derived using the
replacement method for valuing coproducts, and it
does not include energy credits for plants that sell
carbon dioxide. Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as
indicated by an energy ratio of 1.34; that is, for every
Btu dedicated to producing ethanol there is a 34-
percent energy gain. Furthermore, producing ethanol
from domestic corn stocks achieves a net gain in a
more desirable form of energy, which helps the United
States to reduce its dependence on imported oil.
Ethanol production utilizes abundant domestic energy
feedstocks, such as coal and natural gas, to convert
corn into a premium liquid fuel. Only about 17 percent
of the energy used to produce ethanol comes from
liquid fuels, such as gasoline and diesel fuel. For every
1 Btu of liquid fuel used to produce ethanol, there is a
6.34 Btu gain.
When looking at past NEV studies, it appears that
energy requirements for producing a gallon of ethanol
are falling over time. One of the primary factors for
this increase in energy efficiency is the increase in
U.S. corn yields. When ethanol first emerged as a
gasoline extender in the 1970s, corn yield was averaging
about 90 bushels per acre. This study used
1995-97 average corn yield of 125 bushels per acre,
which is about 39 percent greater than the yields of the
1970s. Corn yields continue to rise in the United
States—the average corn yield per acre for the past 3
years (1999-2001) was about 135 bushels per acre. If
the 1999-2001 average corn yield were used in this
analysis, the total energy used to produce a bushel of
corn would decline by more than 4,200 Btu. As corn
yields increase over time, we can expect the energy
balance of corn ethanol to increase, as well. Other
major factors causing this increase in energy efficiency
are related to the energy-saving technologies adopted
by ethanol producers and manufacturers of fertilizers
and other farm inputs. Higher energy costs will likely
continue to provide incentives for these industries to
become more energy efficient, which will continue to
push the NEV of corn ethanol higher."
"Pimentel reported the lowest NEVs by far, about
-33,500 Btu/gal. There is a difference of more than
50,000 Btu between Pimentel’s NEV and the estimate
derived in this study (table 1). Many factors
contributed to Pimentel’s low estimate. For example,
with the exception of Ho, Pimentel’s 1991 study used
the lowest corn yield among the studies. His 1991
study used the highest fertilizer application rate and
the lowest corn ethanol conversion rate. He increased
corn yield and reduced fertilizer application rate in his
2001 study, but oddly, the NEV in the latter study
went down. His estimate for energy used for nitrogen
fertilizer processing was extremely high and appears
not to reflect technology used by modern facilities.
The amount of energy required for ethanol conversion
in Pimentel’s studies also appears outdated.
Conversion estimates used by the other studies ranged
between 40,850 Btu/gal (LHV) and 57,000 Btu/gal
(LHV), while Pimentel’s studies calculated about
75,000 Btu (LHV) to convert a gallon of ethanol. In
addition, he is the only author to include an energy
value for steel, cement, and other materials used in the
production of equipment, farm vehicles, and the
ethanol plant."
It is very Apolitical and affects all of us. It takes money from the East and West coast drivers and puts it in the pockets of huge corporations and big farmers in the Midwest. And it is not something I want in my gas. In fact if they force CA to use it I will go all diesel. It may be ridiculous to you, not me.
Hmmm, you do realize that the only diesels allowed in California are in vehicles over 6000 lbs? So you are saying you would buy a Ford Excursion, or F250 or Chevy Tahoe XT?
However, I take your point. I was never fond of MTBE either. I wonder what alternatives to Ethanol are available (and what they would cost)?
And isn't that something, I can buy a huge diesel Pickup truck and not a VW TDI, that is so much cleaner burning than any of the big 3 diesel PU manufacturers.
Nope, you cannot buy a car from another state, unless it is pre-1992, when the current diesel rules were implemented. You would not be able to register the car here. The VIN would show up as a new diesel and would be rejected.
So I suppose we can go ahead and buy that 1991 Mercedes 300D with 300K miles on it...
Rules will probably change in 2007 when the cleaner low-sulfer diesel is due to be introduced in all states.
mike91326 "VW Passat TDI" Jul 12, 2004 1:58pm
Here is the actual rules that allow you to bring a non CA new car into the state.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/NonCAVeh/NonCAVeh.pdf
Also, realize that you would have to register the vehicle in two different states, and that when you register a vehicle in California from another state, you pay CA sales tax as well as the vehicle fees... I know because it happened to me when I moved here in 1989.
So you would have to pay out-of-state sales taxes and registration plus CA sales taxes and registration.
How long ago did you have to pay sales tax on a used vehicle you brought from a different state? My partner that works with me in Alaska lives in Long Beach and his wife got nervous driving his new Envoy with Alaska plates. It is a year old and she took it in and got CA plates for a total of $233. No sales tax. It surprised me also. They said if the car is over 90 days old there is no tax. I think the laws have changed since 1989.
Good to know and good riddance... my car was 12 years old at the time...
http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/E-CHEVROLET-Suburban1500-05.htm
http://www.ethanol.org/pdfs/energy_balance_ethanol.pdf
http://www.ethanol.org/pdfs/energy_balance_ethanol.pdf
http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/library/admin/uploadedfiles/Ho- w_Much_Energy_Does_it_Take_to_Make_a_Gallon_.html
HIGHLIGHTS
"U.S. Department of Agriculture, July 2002. This study analyzes many of the previous studies on the energy balance of producing ethanol. The conclusion by the study's authors is that there is 34% more energy in a gallon of ethanol than it takes to produce it."
"Michigan State University, May 2002. This comprehensive, independent study funded by MSU shows that there is 56% more energy in a gallon of ethanol than it takes to produce it."
troy
.
Sounds like Hydrogen. H2 has the same flaw, but people ignore it.
Anyway, I find it difficult to believe ethanol results in a 54,000 BTU loss. Ethanol plants are basically *solar cells* absorbing free energy from the sun. Surely having liquified solar energy is beneficial?
troy
I think they consider it a wash because it absorbs as much CO2 as it creates when used as fuel.
troy
22 % of vehicles sold in Brazil in 2004 had Flex-fuel and this may increase to 50 % in 2005. Great.
Their flex-fuel has both
Bi-Fuel (gasolene/Ethanol)
and
Tri-Fuel (gasolene/Ethanol/Natural-gas)
Brazil is also #2 in CNG usage.
As for the energy input/output ratio, if it consumes more input, then combined with the labor, it will cost double that of gasolene,
but it costs only 10 - 15 % more which is also because of low sales volume.
I am sure that Ethanol delivers more energy than what it consumes to produce and in Cane-based Ethanol output is even more. As gas prices increase, expect more vehicles even in USA.
Hey, Indonesia which is a long time OPEC member has become a net oil-importer last year and plans to pull out of that cartel.
Its good to sell vehicles running on E85, but why is GM always putting such technology in trucks.
An average truck driver may never know about E85 and will not search for a station vending that fuel.
GM can bring it in a smaller vehicle like Cobalt, Equinox, etc.
Troy
They would never sell to the public. They average about 25% lower mileage than normal gas engines. I am sure it is more expensive and not readily available. It is cleaner and less GHG. If you want a small car that gets good mileage on an alternate fuel, go with the VW TDI and Biodiesel or the Honda Civic GX that runs on CNG. CNG cars are the Cleanest on the planet. Maybe even cleaner than electric vehicles if you have to use electricity generated with coal or fuel oil.
E85 costs $1.49 / gallon in this webpage. Even it has only 4/5 the energy of gasoline, it should cost 4/5*2.1 = $1.68. So it is 18 cents cheaper.
The gas price shown in the board is definitely older as they show lower price of gas.
It has about 3/4 the energy of unleaded gas. So the break even amount would be if the fuel sells for 25% less. The real kicker is the fact that it is very expensive & dangerous to transport. If you are in the area of an Ethanol plant the price is reasonable. The amount that is added to the CA gas is one of the factors making our gas the most expensive in the nation. I think it is about 11% that is added to our gas. I noticed my mileage on the last trip to Las Vegas in the Lexus was about 1 mpg better on the return trip with a fill-up in Vegas.
Yes, at 1.49/gallon, it is more than 25% lesser than gas which sells at 2.1/gallon.
dangerous to transport
You mean it is toxic. After all gasoline is also dangerous. You might have read the news that an explosion in BP plant in Texas have killed 14 and injured many more.
I noticed my mileage on the last trip to Las Vegas in the Lexus
So do you mean that CA gas which contains Ethanol gives more mileage.
Ethanol is much more volatile than gas or diesel.
My trip back from Las Vegas was with non ethanol gasoline and gave slightly better mileage than I got on the trip over to LV using CA gas. That has been a big cry in CA about the loss of mileage with the 11% ethanol that is added during the winter months. We are guinea pigs in CA when it comes to emissions. They loaded our gas down with MTBE then did the research that found it to be a health hazard.
.
That's not quite true. CA gas was the most expensive, even when you were using MTBE (oxygenate). The switchover to ethanol didn't make any difference in price.
The reason CA gas is the most expensive in the nation is twofold:
-high demand (minor factor)
-no sulfur gasoline (major factor)
It costs a lot of money to make that no sulfur gasoline for California requirements.
troy
troy
I have to agree. I believe that it has been pushed on us to sell ethanol. Companies like ADM have a large interest in ethanol production from seed corn to distilling. A few are making a lot of money on ethanol and all of us are paying for it.
I've been using E85 for three years now. It is an outstanding fuel. Fuel economy is identical to gasoline and you get an additional 10% in horse power. The cost of production is now less than gasoline. Pump price is generally 5 to 30 cents less than regular gasoline.
Because modern agriculture is so energy-intensive, it takes about the same amount of fossil fuel energy to produce the ethanol as it contains. The main culprits are agricultural machinery, transport of materials, and most importantly large quantities of fertilizer (produced from fossil fuels). Then there's the energy required to support the distillation process, too.
Read Pimantel's latest analysis, where he answers ADM's rebuttal of his original paper. The energy gap narrows, but not entirely. The only flaw in his analysis is that he bases his energy calculations for distillation on the current system which has to produce a very high purity suitable for use as a gasoline additive, whereas a car built to run exclusively on ethanol could run fine on a less costly grade of purity.
Ethanol might be made from waste material, thus negating the fossil-inputs argument somewhat. But I think it's more efficient to use crop wastes to produce bio-diesel, so even here, you have to trade off using wastes for ethanol production against the best possible alternative use. Any way you look at it, ethanol just doesn't make sense, energy-wise.
Ethanol is plant-based and is essentially liquid solar energy, so there is no net amount of CO2 is released. A large percentage of raw corn fed to livestock is undigested. When the corn is first fermented to alcohol fuel, the grain can still be fed to cattle and is of a higher feed quality. So it's a bit of a mis-conception that that the Corn is being lost as a food and the Farmer is just out there buring fuel to make fuel - The farmer is actually adding a degree of efficency in that, the same fuel used to grow feed before is now being used to make both feed and fuel.
It's also a mis-conception that Ethanol is just about Politics and the Rich lining their pockets. You'll find that most Ethanol is produced by Farmers and Farmer Co-Ops, not Big Business. As Ethanol useage increases, it creates more jobs in the good ole USA and has the ablilty to reduce our National deficit. Our hard earned dollars stop leaving the Coutry and stop flowing to Countries in the Middle East. Instead, our dollars begin to flow to the American Farmer, the R&D firms that employ Engineers to research Biofuels, to American Manufactures who produce Ethanol and Bio-fuels, to American Labors who work a 40 hour week for a living.
It's common to resist Change and I don't know how Ethanol will finally play out over the long term. I suspect that it will just be one piece of the puzzle used to reduce or dependance on foreign oil. From what I see, I believe Ethanol and Bio-Diesel will play a big part in the transportation arena and I personally believe it will be good for America as a whole.