Come now, I already posted an article from Edmunds that indicates that Toyota will have US-market FFV vehicles by 2008.
To have an honest discussion, we should account for the data that has already been presented, assuming the sources are credible. Edmunds tends to be good at this stuff, so I have no reason to believe that Toyota doesn't intend to follow through.
Again, you know that Toyota is not going to promote E85 today when it doesn't currently sell a car in the US that uses it. TMC will promote the product that it is selling, not what GM is selling.
Let's face it -- biodiesel faces very similar constraints as does corn-based ethanol in the US AND is even further behind the curve.
And what is your point? No one is asking anyone to use biodiesel. The thread is about Ethanol and more specifically E85 and the impact on our fuel economy. I would not be here posting if Ethanol was a grass roots industry as it has been for 30 years. It is the mandate that the ethanol industry cannot keep up with that has me concerned. What happens when you go to the gas station and they are out waiting for a shipment of corn squeezing's to add to the regular unleaded? I would pitch a big fit to my Senators if they had mandated that all diesel vehicles must use B20. You keep trying to turn the discussion into a biodiesel vs ethanol. They are for the most part unrelated. We are just coming out of the throes of the MTBE mandate, and Congress in their well subsidized tradition throw us the Ethanol mandate.
If you follow the whole thread you will know that was in response to the exact same issue. The results of a cross country mileage run between the Jetta TDI and the Prius was already the topic of a long discussion on another thread. So I threw my question that has no answer in response. I found it interesting that the Toyota FFV article did not make any reference to making the hybrids FFVs. In fact TMC was very evasive about the whole subject. I believe they are in the same line of thinking that I have. Why bother with ethanol, it will take a big hit and die as it did 30 years ago, both here and Brazil. Some folks never learn.
And what is your point? No one is asking anyone to use biodiesel.
You might want to consider some of your earlier comments. #440:
I have advocated diesel cars & smaller PU trucks using biodiesel going back at least 5 years. Biodiesel is a solution that does not need subsidies to be beneficial.
I just posted data that given current conditions, biodiesel would at best provide for one-quarter of one percent of the US's current diesel consumption.
So why do you continually make this claim of the product being "beneficial", when there is far less potential for it in its current form than for this other product that is already in wider distribution?
when there is far less potential for it in its current form than for this other product that is already in wider distribution?
I am assuming you are talking about gasoline. The beauty of biodiesel is you can become totally independent of the oil industry. Ethanol in its current form cannot. There are many folks using B100 and not using any of OPEC's oil. I never said it would work for all of us. It is better than nothing and a solution to the problem for a few of the brighter folks in the country. For those that are happy with their gas cars, SUVs and trucks fine. Just give those of us that would like a True alternative the opportunity. Don't force anything down our tanks. What you drive is your decision. Just don't try to make my decision for me. Anyone that advocates a mandate such as the current ethanol mandate is trying to force their views onto the rest of us.
Nothing you have posted has refuted my claim that biodiesel can be beneficial. As some here would say show me the data that biodiesel is a bad alternative to diesel. I have posted plenty of research that ethanol from CORN is detrimental to our environment.
> It was posted in the hybrids and diesel thread and you discounted it because you did not like the results.
When those here ask about real-world data for ethanol, do you honestly think they'll accept just a single highway-only test like that one?
Real-World means actual driving. That's a mix of city, suburb, and highway. It must include all of the seasons too.
I have 55,600 miles of data using E10 in my Prius. That's real-world. The diesel claims are empty, virtually nothing to actually support them. Talking about the lack of a plan.
The beauty of biodiesel is you can become totally independent of the oil industry.
Er, how do you plan on doing that when I've already shown you that given current circumstances, we only have enough soybeans to produce 0.25% of current US diesel consumption?
For your claim to be valid, some things would have to first happen:
-Diesel demand would have to plummet through the floor, so that production becomes a relatively higher percentage of our total fuel needs. If we reduced our use of diesel by 99.75%, then we could use soybeans to become self-sufficient and use no more petroleum-diesel.
-Some biomass better be found that can make up for the lack of soybeans, being that we don't have enough soybeans to make it happen.
I'm going to repeat this number: 99.75%. That's a bit different from independence, isn't it?
Real-World means actual driving. That's a mix of city, suburb, and highway. It must include all of the seasons too.
Is this what you mean? Here is a fellow like yourself that has a website devoted to his car a VW TDI.
What makes my '98 Jetta special besides the engine?Although I'm a bit of a leadfoot and compete in SCCA events, my lifetime average economy over 204,000-miles is about 43-mpg.
One car at a time! Are you doing your part to stick it to OPEC? There are many people and companies that give more than lip service to this goal.
Kettle Chips is doing something without subsidies to cut down on our usage of fossil fuel.
We use our cooking oil twice! The second time it powers several of our company cars in the form of biodiesel. Find out how we recycle our oils into an alternative fuel.
asked that a while back of our resident Ethanol salesman. I guess he is not allowed to talk about anything that takes away from the CORN industry. I believe he is a paid plant from the ADM lobby group. He keeps pasting only the stuff they pre-approve of. Such as misinformation about diesel cars and ethanol availability
Sir, you have to build rational arguments. I talked about sugar beets before, but then I am not a farmer...was it 300 acres in Minnesota or 3 acres in CA that you tried to farm? You have stated both. Any renewable resource is a lot better than trying to destroy this country as the oil cartel is.
I worked for the largest computer company in the world for 30 years and we all chuckled when the failing companies with no ideas always whined about how "we hurt them." Demagoguery is an old game. This not an anarchist/ socialist country and large companies like ADM, DC, GM, Ford and others survive very well in our democracy, the ups and downs of a corporation can be followed daily in the Wall Street Journal.
I really do not care to respond to your comments. People here are trying to understand the facts of this debate. I try to quote responsible organizations, states, companies and legislative parties, not every blog on the internet.
Some lawmakers push sugar as source of ethanol FREDERIC J. FROMMER Associated Press WASHINGTON - With the market for corn-based ethanol booming, lawmakers from sugar-producing states like Minnesota and Florida are hoping that beet and cane growers can soon jump onto the renewable fuel bandwagon.
They cite the model of Brazil, which produces ethanol made from sugar cane. But critics, pointing out that sugar is much cheaper in Brazil than in the United States, question whether the economics of sugar-based ethanol would work in this country.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture is expected to issue a long-awaited study around July 1 on the viability of converting sugar into ethanol.
Keith Collins, the USDA's chief economist, said that the soaring demand for ethanol and Brazil's successful track record make it worth discussing sugar-based ethanol here.
"At some point in the future it may be worthy of commercial development," he said. "Technologically, it's possible. The question is: is it economically feasible?"
Collins noted that besides cheaper sugar, Brazil has higher yields per acre because of better climate and investment in more-productive strains of sugar cane.
"So, obviously, we can look at the technology of conversion, and learn some things from them about that," Collins said. "But it's a little hard for us just to look at Brazil and conclude that their structure of production would be our structure of production. We can't conclude that."
Sugar in this country is made from two sources: beets in some northern and western states, and cane in a few southern states, including Hawaii. Minnesota is the largest producer of sugar produced from beets, while Florida leads in sugar from cane, according to the American Sugar Alliance, a trade group.
There is skepticism among some sugar growers that ethanol is a viable end product for their crop.
"If I was going to guess, I would say the economics are not going to be there," said Steve Williams, president of the American Sugar Beet Growers Association, who farms about 700 acres of sugar beets in Fisher, Minn. "The food value is better for sugar than for ethanol."
But backers see room for growth in the ethanol area, especially if oil prices remain high.
"It would be absurd in 10 years if we're doing 60 billion gallons of ethanol, and the only crop in America that's not participating is sugar," said Sen. Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican and one of Congress' leading champions of sugar-based ethanol.
"What I'm saying is you gotta look beyond where you are today," he added. "We're moving into a period where ethanol is going to play a major part in cutting dependence on foreign oil." But not all Minnesota lawmakers agree that there is a future for sugar-based ethanol in the U.S.
Rep. Collin Peterson, a Democrat whose Minnesota district includes many of the state's sugar beet growers, called the idea an "empty promise." Peterson, the ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, argued the Brazil model won't work in the U.S. due to the difference in sugar prices.
Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, tried unsuccessfully last year to get the Senate to require refineries across the country to use 100 million gallons of sugar-based ethanol a year. "It's not going to happen unless there is a push from Congress with the incentives," Nelson said, short of a major disruption in the oil supply to the U.S.
Coleman and Nelson are backing legislation sponsored by Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., that would encourage the use of renewable fuels, including the 100 million-gallon mandate for sugar-based ethanol.
Jack Roney, an economist with the American Sugar Alliance, agreed that the government would need to step in to stimulate a sugar-to-ethanol industry.
"It would take a combination of consumption mandates to ensure that the demand would be there, and conceivably some production incentives to use sugar ethanol," he said.
"The way that the Brazilians established their program is through 30 years of government intervention in energy and agriculture markets, to ensure there would be adequate demand and supplies." Roney said his group is open to the idea of a sugar-to-ethanol industry, but would insist it not replace the U.S. sugar program, which guarantees minimum prices to cane and beet farmers and limits sugar imports.
Couldn't the govt give subsidies to GROW corn, vs NOT growing it
They are paying huge subsidies to grow corn and to make ethanol from the corn. That is why this debate is so heated. We are wasting tax dollars on a dead pony. Of course those that benefit in the Midwest are happy like those in the South with tobacco allotments.
In the spirit(s) of all of us being good neighbors to each other, may I suggest the following for light reading...chuckle..burp!
Stills are still legal
Custom handcrafted copper moonshine stills forged by an old timer here in the Ozark mountains of Arkansas. Old fashion craftsmanship combined with modern distilling technology makes these the finest copper moonshine stills available. All copper moonshine stills with brass fittings makes for the best thermal conductivity offered by precious metals. Copper has over four times the thermal conductivity of it's closest rival, stainless steel. It also has a good reputation for removing toxins because of it's natural acidic nature, giving a fresh brisk taste to food and beverages. Copper is the world wide industrial standard for distilleries, breweries and candy manufactures. Tried and true for thousands of years. Only pure 99.9%+ copper is used. The highest purity ever in history. Forged with nontoxic spilter only. These all copper moonshine stills have also been purchased for restaurant decor and in night clubs to dispense drinks. Its illegal to distill alcohol without a license or permit.
You can get a free moonshine fuel permit from the Federal government.
The IRS will pay you 30 to 60 cents for every gallon of fuel ethanol that you produce.
Some states have changed there laws making it easier for the average person to get a commercial license for spirits. All copper moonshine stills and equipment are sold as art decor only. Buyers assume any and all liability.
Will custom build any size shape or design of copper moonshine still that you can think of. Just dream it up and we'll give you a quote. Large orders may require a deposit.
Contact Colonel Wilson by email or call by phone.
Click here to contact by email or call the Colonel at 479 414 3220 or hers 479 997 5289 8am to 10pm any day.
How To Order
Email or call to place an order. You can pay by Paypal, cashiers check or by money order. To use Visa or Master Card, click on the Paypal icon at the bottom of this page and sign up for a Paypal account.
> Here is a fellow like yourself that has a website devoted to his car a VW TDI.
It's only a webpage with a summary. Where's the detail? Data is lots of numbers, not just one.
By the way, it's 4.7 MPG lower than the average of the 692 Prius listed on the GH database. So even the summary alone makes diesel look bad. What's your point... especially since it isn't even the vehicle I asked about in the first place.
My point is, that over 204,000 miles he averaged 43 MPG. I don't see anyone at even a 100k miles reporting their accumulated mileage for either Prius on GH. There are a few at 50K or there abouts. I want to know how the car runs and what repairs have been done to it after it reaches 10 years or 200k miles. Is that too much to ask. I believe you are being picky for no reason. There is a TDI website that has far more information. It is not permissible to link it. There are hundreds of VW TDI owners just as enthusiastic about their cars as you are about yours.
The big difference is I don't see the hybrid hatred on that site that the hybrid sites show toward diesel cars. Both technologies are saving fossil fuel. Why the animosity? Just like many people here would never own a VW, there are many that would never own a Toyota. That does not mean that either is inferior to the other.
Of course E85 is yet to be proven of any value. No absolute proof that it produces more energy than it takes to grow & produce.
> Both technologies are saving fossil fuel. Why the animosity?
Because diesel only addresses one problem. It is an imcomplete solution.
The other goal is to reduce smog-related emissions. Not only doesn't diesel do that, it actually makes them worse. Even oridinary gas vehicles are cleaner. Using ethanol makes them better. Combine that with hybrid technology, you have a real winner.
With 60,000,000 new vehicles on the road worldwide each year, allowing dirtier emissions just plain does not make any sense.
As for saving fuel, why are you still in denial that the next generation of hybrid will be even more efficient?
As for saving fuel, why are you still in denial that the next generation of hybrid will be even more efficient?
At what cost? Each hybrid Toyota has brought out is more expensive. That is not practical for wealthy Americans let alone poorer countries. So far hybrids have done little to save on fuel. The Prius does well on fuel savings, yet it is still far from a proven long lived technology. Not everyone can justify a new vehicle every few years. I seriously doubt with the problems that have cropped up with the hybrids that any of them will be with us as long as the last generation of Camry. As my earlier post shows the VW TDI is a long lived fuel miser. When ULSD is common they will be cleaner in many ways than gas cars. That is where I see denial on your part. There is no way you can get more energy out of a gallon of gas than a gallon of diesel. And we all know that ethanol is of little use other than an oxygenate. And the benefits of that are questionable.
Each hybrid Toyota has brought out is more expensive.
Priuses command a high price because they are being marketed to innovators interested in technology and to those with an environmental orientation, not to price-conscious shoppers. Current inventories are low enough that they basically are pre-sold or sell with a few days or arrival, without discounting.
They will be marketed later to price-oriented pragmatists as the technology matures and production increases to stabilized levels. There's no reason to do that now, as it would actually devalue it in the eyes of the marketplace.
The Prius does well on fuel savings, yet it is still far from a proven long lived technology.
The Prius is more reliable than a Jetta. As much as I like VW's as a driver's car, Toyota reliability beats VW hands down.
How many serious problems has the Jetta TDI had compared to the Prius both generations? I'll give you a hint the Prius II is on it's second recall as we post. Maybe you should back up your statements with more than CR propaganda. Just because Toyota has a good reputation for reliability does not make all Toyota cars reliable. The current recall is for 170,000 Prius for possible steering failure. None here but a few in Japan. And have you forgotten all the stalled Prius on the highways that required a NHTSA investigation to get Toyota off the dime. I follow the VW TDI threads and the biggest problems I see there are fuel related issues and electric window failures. Hardly as significant as the Prius problems.
Maybe you should back up your statements with more than CR propaganda.
You don't really want to recycle that unproven canard, do you?
We've gone over these allegations elsewhere on this site, and none of you have ever backed it up with any data. If you're going to make the claim, you need to back it up.
You should have looked up the VW. You would have seen the recall on the diesel engine:
Vehicle: 2005 Volkswagen Jetta
Defect Description: ON CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES, THE HIGH PRESSURE DIESEL PUMPS WERE PRODUCED WITH AN IMPROPER FASTENER, WHICH COULD ALLOW DIESEL FUEL TO ESCAPE FROM THE PUMP.
Consequence of Defect: DIESEL FUEL IN THE PRESENCE OF AN IGNITION SOURCE MAY LEAD TO A FIRE.
Corrective Action: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE DIESEL PUMP. THE RECALL IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN DURING FEBRUARY 2005. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT VOLKSWAGEN AT 1-800-822-2834.
Again, you can't just look at the problems and issues of the things that you don't like. You also have to compare directly to the stuff that you do like.
Of course E85 is yet to be proven of any value. No absolute proof that it produces more energy than it takes to grow & produce.
Ethanol is an American solution to renewable fuels that lessens our dependencies on oil producing dictators and stops the obstructionists that want to deny us any relief from oil dependence. It uses autos that are currently being produced for E10 and FFVs that use E85 that have the same cost as non-FFV autos. Of course ethanol has a larger base than Biodiesel because diesels are an infitestimal percentage of currently available autos with almost absolutely no infrastructure for their support...they are a nice alternative, if they can ever make them meet government regulations, but are only a tiny niche that has very little future as of now.
Perhaps this "report" is not relevant to the topic at hand, but there are reports that list the "best and worst" of products.
Recently a British TV program listed the worst handling (and least safe based on that characteristic) cars in the world. The Prius was a proud member of that list, apparently being unable to negotiate a turn that had been wetted down -- the car continued in, essentially, a straight direction despite the attempts to make it turn on the wet pavement.
This is certainly not the fault of its propulsion system, but is, in part, something that needs to be addressed, sooner rather than later.
======= Perhaps more on topic: =======
As I continue to read here and elsewhere, there is at least one common theme: 70% of the fuel we use to propel our vehicles will be petroleum for decades, probably generations to come.
Raising MPG's needs to be a priority (DOH!) since cutting back seems unlikely. Ethanol (E85) will have difficulty based on what we know and know how to do today helping this goal move forward.
Nobody will care if ethanol gets worse mileage if the cost drops at least to "cover" the delta between the lower mileage and the cost of gasoline.
If E85 without any subsidy can be cranked out at $3.00 per gallon at retail, most people would be OK with the price and then when the MPG's were factored in would, eventually if not immediately, think a 30% loss of MPG's is a bit like burning paper money to keep warm when there are other less expensive sources of fuel to burn to keep warm.
Perhaps E85 will be somehow made (without subsidies) to cost at least $.50 less per gallon than gasloline -- if that happens (and more) perhaps ethanol as we now know it can make a dent in stretching our petroleum reserves at a planetary level.
Big corn vs big oil, too, seems to be a battle that will wage for some time to come.
What would happen "if" we starting allowing oil companies to look for oil in places they are currently not allowed to look? Some claim the risk is that nothing will be found and that at least with the resources spent to develop alternatives that we will have some energy.
Of course, the time when we can economically get the oil reserves already known [in the US] out of the ground in the Colorado, Wyoming, etc area (Rand Study) continues to move nearer and nearer. But, gee, somewhere between 20 and 40 years (based on what we now know) still not only seems, but is, a long time away.
Mark Oberle, chief financial officer of ethanol maker Corn Plus LLP, is sitting out his industry's biggest building boom in a quarter century, and Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates may wish he'd done the same.
Within two years, planned expansion by ethanol producers will push U.S. supplies past demand, according to Standard & Poor's.
"The danger of a glut is very real," said J. Stephan Dolezalek, a partner at San Bruno, Calif.-based VantagePoint Venture Partners, a venture capital firm with stakes in three Midwest distilleries.
Overproduction may sour investments such as Gates' $84 million stake in Pacific Ethanol Inc., which hasn't produced fuel yet. The same may be true for shares of VeraSun Energy Corp., which this week raised $419.8 million, more than expected, in its initial public offering.
Producers are planning to expand after ethanol prices soared to records in response to government rules requiring more of the additive in gasoline. President Bush and former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan also have said ethanol may be an alternative to fuel made from petroleum.
"The feel-good factor in the ethanol industry is very high right now," said Venkataraman Sreekanth, manager of North American energy analysis at Frost & Sullivan Inc., a San Jose, Calif.-based consulting firm.
Advances in technology in ethanol production process has substantially reduced costs. A shift to larger production plants along with improved yeast strains and enzymes have reduced cost by more than 50 percent. These innovations have lowered production costs from $1.40 per gallon in 1980 to less than $1.00 in 2001. Still newer plants and improved technologies have further reduced costs to an approximate current average of $1.09 to produce one gallon of ethanol. This trend is expected to continue. The cost of producing ethanol will also be affected by corn yields, corn costs, and markets for co-products.
Consumer prices at the service station pump for E-10 ethanol blend is usually the same price per gallon as unblended fuel. This is also true for E-85 blends. The price at the retail gas pump reflects federal and state tax exemptions, loan guarantees, and other government subsidies.
Offsetting the cost of these tax incentives is a reduction in farm subsidies and the increase of tax revenues. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, if ethanol use does not continue to grow, "deficiency payments for corn and other program crops will increase by $580 million for crop year 1998 and $740 million by the year 2000"-more than the cost of the tax incentives. The economic activity attributable to the ethanol industry will generate $3.5 billion in additional income tax revenue over the next five years -- $1 billion more than the cost of tax exemptions. The U.S. ethanol industry will create a net gain to the taxpayers of almost $4 billion over the next five years.
The oil industry began receiving federal subsidies as early as 1916 to promote development of an energy industry. As the oil industry became more profitable, the subsidy payments continued. In 1984, the oil industry received over $8.5 billion from the federal government. During the same time period, renewable fuel industries -- solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower, and alcohol fuels -- received only $l.7 billion.
Ethanol is an American solution to renewable fuels that lessens our dependencies on oil producing dictators and stops the obstructionists that want to deny us any relief from oil dependence.
How does it accomplish that when it takes as much Saudi oil to produce ethanol as you get back. It is just not practical and the American public is getting the shaft from both OPEC and the Mega Farmers.
A United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service Report number 814 titled "Estimating The Net Energy Balance Of Corn Ethanol: An Update " was published in July of 2002. The Conclusion states in part: "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." A similar study done in 1995 indicated only a 1.24 energy ratio. The increase is accounted for by an increase in corn yields and greater efficiencies in the ethanol production process. As a result, energy efficiency in the production of ethanol is increasing. The concept of "input efficiencies for fossil energy sources" was introduced as a component of the study. This was meant to account for the fossil energy used to extract, transport and manufacture the raw material (crude oil) into the final energy product (gasoline). According to the study, gasoline has an energy ratio of 0.805. In other words, for every unit of energy dedicated to the production of gasoline there is a 19.5 percent energy loss. In summary, the finished liquid fuel energy yield for fossil fuel dedicated to the production of ethanol is 1.34 but only 0.74 for gasoline. In other words the energy yield of ethanol is (1.34/0.74) or 81 percent greater than the comparable yield for gasoline.
Bio-Diesel versus Petroleum DieselA similar study was co-sponsored by the United States Department of Energy and the USDA, entitled, "Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus."
The study, published in May 1998, states; "Biodiesel yields 3.2 units of fuel product energy for every unit of fossil energy consumed in its life cycle." The report continues, "By contrast, Petroleum diesel's life cycle yields only 0.83 units of fuel energy per unit of fossil energy consumed." According to this analysis, the energy yield of biodiesel is (3.2/0.83) 280 percent greater than petroleum diesel fuel.
Summary - Energy Balance/Energy Life Cycle Inventory Fuel * Energy yield Net Energy (loss) or gain Gasoline 0.805 (19.5 percent) Diesel 0.843 (15.7 percent) Ethanol 1.34 34 percent Biodiesel 3.20 220 percent
* Life cycle yield in liquid fuel Btus for each Btu of fossil fuel energy consumed.
The positive energy ratio displayed by ethanol and biodiesel is accounted for by the contribution of solar energy collected by the crop from which the fuel is made. This energy is considered "renewable" because a new crop is raised each year. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, originate from fossilized plants and animals stored beneath the earth's surface in a process that took millions of years.
Another consideration discussed in the 2002 net energy report relates to the specific demand for liquid fuels and the relative abundance of energy sources used to make these renewable fuels. The report explains, "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."
Venezuelan embargo would cause oil prices to jump, report says
• US is 'not ready' for Chávez oil ban threat • High oil prices could be here to stay • Hugo Chavez blames U.S. for high oil prices • Oil Company Execs: Fuel Relatively Cheap
Updated: 6:32 p.m. CT June 14, 2006 WASHINGTON - Tight oil markets and little spare production capacity worldwide make the United States more vulnerable today to a cutoff of Venezuelan oil than three years ago when a strike curtailed Venezuelan supplies, a congressional study warns.
The report by the Government Accountability Office says a Venezuelan oil embargo against the United States would cause oil prices immediately to jump by $4 to $6 a barrel and increase gasoline prices at the pump by 11 to 15 cents a gallon.
A six-month loss of 2.2 million barrels a day of Venezuelan production — about what was lost during the strike by Venezuelan oil workers during the winter of 2002-03 — could cause a price spike of $11 a barrel and cut U.S. economic output by $23 billion, the report said, citing an Energy Department computer model analysis.
The study, published in May 1998, states; "Biodiesel yields 3.2 units of fuel product energy for every unit of fossil energy consumed in its life cycle." The report continues, "By contrast, Petroleum diesel's life cycle yields only 0.83 units of fuel energy per unit of fossil energy consumed." According to this analysis, the energy yield of biodiesel is (3.2/0.83) 280 percent greater than petroleum diesel fuel.
Another tidbit I agree with. How much better is biodiesel than ethanol per your posting? If your article is correct and for every BTU of fossil energy expended you get 1.34 BTUs of ethanol energy. And you do the same for biodiesel and every BTU of energy produces 3.2 BTUs of energy, that seems pretty conclusive as to where the best alternative fuel lies. Getting close to 2.5 times the energy from biodiesel that you get from ethanol with the same amount of fossil fuel expended seems like a no brainer to me. Why not plant soy beans instead of corn. Or better yet Rapeseed yields a higher grade of biodiesel.
Plenty of plants are planned -- now we need cars and pumps Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Monday, June 12, 2006
(06-12) 04:00 PDT Washington -- California has lagged in the national ethanol boom, but that is changing in a big way. If cars and trucks that can run largely on ethanol get a toehold in the state, advocates say, the sky's the limit for the market of the fuel additive.
"Ethanol production looks really, really bright in California,'' said Tom Koehler, vice president of Fresno-based Pacific Ethanol Inc., a publicly traded company that's nearing completion on a 35 million-gallon-a-year corn-based ethanol plant in Madera in the Central Valley.
The new plant will more than double the state's existing output. Three plants with a capacity of 33.5 million gallons a year are producing ethanol from corn or from food and beverage waste material, but that's a drop in the bucket of the 900 million gallons used in California annually, according to state Energy Commission data.
The vast majority of the state's ethanol, used since 2004 to replace the groundwater-polluting additive MTBE in gasoline, is imported from the Midwest.
But much more production in the state is anticipated. Pacific Ethanol plans four more plants in the Central Valley using corn brought in by rail from the Midwest, Koehler said. His company is chaired by former California Secretary of State Bill Jones.
Among Pacific Ethanol's investors is Microsoft tycoon Bill Gates, who has put $84 million through his Cascade Investment firm into the company.
The state Energy Commission says a host of other projects are in the works. A startup company, Calgren Renewable Fuels, is due to break ground on a 40 million-gallon plant in Hanford (Kings County) this summer. And it's considering another plant in Pixley (Tulare County).
Santa Maria-based American Ethanol envisions a giant 500 million-gallon corn-based facility in Santa Barbara County.
And a host of proposals using crops other than corn are in development, the commission said. These include a plan by the city of Gridley (Butte County) to brew locally grown rice straw into ethanol and plans by investors to turn municipal waste into ethanol in Santa Maria, Riverside and Santa Barbara.
A company called Nova Fuels in Fresno wants to use wood to brew ethanol in Riverside County.
Ethanol, which is used as a clean-air additive, makes up 5.6 percent of the gasoline pumped in the state.
And that could increase if Californians start buying so-called E85 vehicles capable of running on regular gas or a mixture of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gas. About 200,000 of the vehicles have already been sold in the state, out of roughly 5 million nationwide, but there is only one gas station, in San Diego, with an E85 pump open to the public.
The state Air Resources Board has certified E85 for use in the state. "We are actively supporting it,'' said spokesman Jerry Martin.
That puts the board at odds with the Energy Commission, which would rather boost ethanol consumption by requiring that it make up 10 percent of all gas sold in the state.
"We think that would be more effective because all cars can use 10 percent ethanol but only a small percentage can use E85,'' said commission spokesman Rob Schlichting.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he would like to see more E85 vehicles and an increase in ethanol use in all gas, so that will probably be the state's course.
That raises the question of when more E85 stations will open.
For General Motors, which has become a major advocate of E85 vehicles, the new pumps can't come too soon.
"It's a chicken-and-egg situation,'' said Dave Barthmuss, GM's North America public policy issues manager. "We hope the prospects are great. We want to demonstrate that if you put in pumps, we will work with you.''
But so far, gas stations don't detect much movement toward E85. "It's in the very preliminary stages,'' said Bob Oyster, who owns eight Shell stations and a Chevron outlet located from Sacramento to Menlo Park. "Chevron has talked about it, but nobody is saying they're going to come and convert some of your pumps.''
Leif Sollid of Chevron, the state's largest gas retailer, said any decision on installing E85 pumps will await results from a pilot program involving about 100 vehicles in which Chevron's partners include GM and Pacific Ethanol. "What we learn from this yearlong project will help us determine how to proceed,'' he said.
January 26, 2006 Amid growing concerns about unstable oil supplies and the impact of fossil fuels on global warming, biofuels are receiving increased attention.
A new study now suggests that the most important biofuel—ethanol, which is made from corn in the United States—is more energy efficient than previously thought.
Some prior studies have suggested that ethanol production may consume more energy—from nonrenewable sources—than is available in the resulting fuel.
But a reexamination of those studies show that current corn-ethanol production technologies are far less petroleum-intensive than gasoline, though both fuels have similar greenhouse gas emissions.
"The doomsdayers are wrong," said Alexander Farrell, the lead study author and an assistant professor in the Energy and Resources Group at the University of California, Berkeley. "We show that the net energy is in fact positive for corn ethanol." He later added that to "really evaluate this fuel we need to look at other indicators like petroleum and greenhouse gas emission."
Farrell and other scientists say that new technology could dramatically boost the environmental performance of ethanol.
Fuel Mix
Ethanol is used as a motor fuel additive. It is a renewable energy source, unlike petroleum and coal.
In the United States, ethanol accounts for about 2 percent of total transportation fuel. In Brazil, where ethanol is produced from sugarcane, the fuel powers the majority of the country's road transport.
About 5 percent of the road fuels used in the United States and the European Union are expected to be bio-derived within the next five years.The U.S. Department of Energy aims to replace 30 percent of the liquid petroleum transportation fuel with biofuels by 2025.
"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."
This misleading report needs to be addressed separately. I think they are referring to the diesel used in the tractor plowing the field to plant the corn. It leaves out the other fossil fuels that the report claims are plentiful. Most of which is natural gas used to produce the fertilizer that is needed to get any yield out of soil that is depleted by poor farm management. Without massive amounts of anhydrous ammonia those farms would not even grow corn. If it was only destroying the corn fields of Iowa I would say no big loss. Those nitrates that are leached into the streams and rivers are destroying fisheries as far away as the Mississippi Delta.
Fill up with ethanol, and we can all breathe a little easier. What makes ethanol-enriched fuel better for the environment? Truth is, choosing ethanol-enriched fuel at the pump is one of the easiest ways you can help reduce pollution and help us all breathe a little easier!
And unlike other alternatives that are being talked about and studied, fuel enriched with ethanol is available right now in many areas of the country.
So you can do your part for the environment today.
BETTER FOR THE AIR Ethanol is an oxygenate — meaning it contains oxygen — which helps regular gasoline burn more cleanly. That’s why gasoline enriched with ethanol burns cleaner, more completely and more efficiently with lower carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon tailpipe emissions.
Think of it! When you choose ethanol-enriched fuel, you’ll improve the air we all breathe because ethanol:
Reduces harmful tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide by as much as 30%. Reduces particulate matter emissions by more than 25%. Reduces oxides of nitrogen. Reduces toxic emissions by 30%. Reduces exhaust volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions by 12%. Reduces ozone-forming pollutants.
That’s why cities with air-pollution problems require the use of oxygenated fuels like ethanol.
The facts are clear:
10% ethanol-enriched fuel reduces carbon monoxide better than any other reformulated gasoline — by as much as 30%. Choosing even a 10% ethanol-enriched fuel results in a 35 – 46% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. E85 has the highest oxygen content of any fuel available, making it burn more cleanly and more completely than any other fuel. BETTER FOR GROUNDWATER You may have heard about MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) — a fuel oxygenate derived from petroleum — which used to be one of the best-selling oxygenates in the world. Today, MTBE is banned in many states because it has been shown to contaminate groundwater, and it is listed as a possible carcinogen. But don’t worry. Ethanol is a great alternative because it’s highly biodegradable and nontoxic.
THE ISSUE OF ENERGY BALANCE It takes energy to produce energy. The key is to “get” more energy out of the final product than it “takes” to make it.
According to a 2004 USDA study, the production of ethanol creates more than 67 percent more energy than it takes to make it. And other studies have come to similar conclusions. So when you consider that ethanol is helping expand our fuel supply, it clearly is a net energy winner — wouldn’t you agree?
RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE Unlike fossil fuels that take thousands of years to form, ethanol is completely renewable, made from crops grown right here in the United States. According to many experts, fossil-fuel sources will be depleted in 50 years. So a renewable resource like ethanol is a long-term alternative — which can help us all breathe a sigh of relief, because we know it can be available when we need it.
Nitrate Nitrogen: Iowa's Unintended Export by Robert D. Libra
The Mississippi River has long been an important transportation route for Iowa products. For decades, river barges have provided a relatively low-cost way to export the bounty from the state’s farms, factories, and woodlands to the Gulf of Mexico and the world beyond. However, recent studies have highlighted an unintended export from Iowa and the rest of the Corn Belt to the Gulf, one that may be helping to generate a condition that limits the productivity of some of the Gulf’s fisheries. This export is nitrogen, and the condition is called "hypoxia."
Hypoxia describes a zone of poorly oxygenated water that occurs along the Louisiana Gulf coast, and that may be growing more extensive. While the causes of hypoxia are still under debate, many marine scientists are convinced that an increase in the delivery of nutrients, particularly nitrogen, to the Gulf is at the heart of the problem. Nitrogen increases the production of tiny marine phytoplankton whose life cycle reduces the amount of oxygen available for fish and shrimp. Fish and shrimp populations decline in response to this less favorable environment.
The Mississippi River provides the bulk of the runoff to the Gulf, taking the drainage from 40% of the continental U.S. and funneling it southward. This impressive volume of water averages almost 140 cubic miles per year, enough to cover Iowa to a depth of 13 feet. It carries with it an equally impressive amount of nitrogen, estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey to average 1.65 million tons/year since 1980, with most of the nitrogen, about 1 million tons/year, in the form of the chemical compound nitrate (NO3). When researchers look up-river for the sources of this nitrate, they find no shortage. The list of suspects includes human waste, industrial activities, and input from rain. However, most attention has focused on agricultural practices and sources, such as fertilizer, manure, legume production, and mineralization of soil nitrogen, all of which account for most of the nitrogen added to the Mississippi basin. The largest agricultural input occurs in the Corn Belt, and the greatest delivery of nitrate to the Mississippi River appears to be from Corn Belt states. Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey suggest that over 60% of the River’s nitrate load is derived from sources north of St. Louis.
One of the most controversial issues relating to ethanol (and more recently to biodiesel as well) is what environmentalists call the "net energy" of ethanol production: is more energy used to grow and process the raw material into ethanol than is contained in the ethanol itself?
It's especially controversial in the US. In the US most ethanol is made from corn (maize), which is far from the best energy crop (Brazil uses sugar cane). Nonetheless, a US Department of Agriculture study concludes that ethanol contains 34% more energy than is used to grow and harvest the corn and distill it into ethanol. "Estimating the Net Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol", by Hosein Shapouri et al., US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Office of Energy and New Uses, Agricultural Economic Report No. 721, July 1995 -- "Studies conducted since the late 1970s have estimated the net energy value of corn ethanol. However, variations in data and assumptions used among the studies have resulted in a wide range of estimates. This study identifies the factors causing this wide variation and develops a more consistent estimate... We show that corn ethanol is energy efficient as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.24."
"The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update", by Hosein Shapouri and James A. Duffield, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, and Michael Wang of the Center for Transportation Research, Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory. Agricultural Economic Report No. 813, 2002: "Corn ethanol is energy efficient... For every BTU dedicated to producing ethanol there is a 34% energy gain... Only about 17% 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."
In "How Much Energy Does It Take to Make a Gallon of Ethanol?", David Lorenz and David Morris of the Institute for Local-Self Reliance (ILSR) state: "Using the best farming and production methods, the amount of energy contained in a gallon of ethanol is more than twice the energy used to grow the corn and convert it to ethanol." A 1992 ILSR study, based on actual energy consumption data from farmers and ethanol plant operators, found that the production of ethanol from corn is a positive net energy generator. In this updated paper the numbers look even more attractive: more energy is contained in the ethanol and the other by-products of corn processing than is used to grow the corn and convert it into ethanol and by-products.
New study confronts old thinking on ethanol's net energy value, 3/28/2005 -- Ethanol generates 35% more energy than it takes to produce, according to a recent study by Argonne National Laboratory conducted by Michael Wang. The new findings support earlier research that determined ethanol has a positive net energy balance, according to the National Corn Growers Association. That research was conducted by USDA, Michigan State University, the Colorado School of Mines, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and other public and private entities. Argonne is one of the US Department of Energy's largest research centers.
A USDA study released in 2004 found that ethanol may net as much as 67% more energy than it takes to produce.
A USDA study released in 2004 found that ethanol may net as much as 67% more energy than it takes to produce.
Just the Facts: In June 2004, the USDA revised their estimate of ethanol's energy ratio from 1.34 up to 1.67—almost entirely because they changed calculation methods. But the method they argued for and used in 2002 was right, and the new one is wrong.
The new study re-estimates energy inputs from seed corn, nitrogen, herbicides, pesticides, transportation, and production. The net result is to lower the energy ratio from 1.09 to 1.06, ignoring ethanol byproducts. But energy byproducts used to add 0.25 and now they add 0.71 to the energy ratio.
Previously, a byproduct that saved 1 unit of energy was given 1 unit of credit. Now a byproduct that uses up 1 unit of energy is given 1 unit of credit--even if it saves no energy at all. That's wrong.
Nice try, and I guess it worked. It convinced the lame brains in Washington that ethanol was worth wasting billions of dollars in corporate welfare.
Add to this the "fun factor" that driving a weapons grade toque diesel vehicle will yield in a country that virtually worships 0 - 60 mph accelerative ability, and diesel (pure petrol, petrol/blend and no-petrol) vehicles start to get sexy.
Still, even as attractive (to me, and maybe ONLY to me) as diesels MAY prove to be, we currently are at 0.26% diesel penetration (light duty, aka cars that Mr. and Ms. America actually drives.) Would not it take more than an act of Congress and perhaps more than a force majeure to make even a single digit dent in our consumption of "gasoline?"
What was the timeline to get to 30% diesel penetration in Europe overall and 70% diesel penetration in the Luxury/Premium/Performance Sedans "over there?"
I have been visiting Europe since 1993 on at least a once yearly basis -- and on some trips I rent cars, starting in either 1999 or 2000 (sorry I can't be more specific) the cars I rented stopped being gasoline and became instead diesel (BTW, the cars I have rented, thus far, have always been German makes -- perhaps because I have usually specified what we in the US call "mid size" cars; i.e., the smallest car Budget, for instance, has ever rented to me was an Audi A4 and the largest was a Mercedes E (body size) class.)
Did something "magic" happen in the past 5 - 7 years that moved the Europeans to adopt diesels so rapidly that overall 1 in 3 are now thus?
Imagine the sea change that would be required to go from 0.26% to 30% diesel penetration in the US -- wow.
I keep reading the stuff and hopefully NOT nonsense that suggests "diesel" is part of the mix that will be "our savior." Wanting it to be so, as my mom used to say, won't exactly make it happen (ditto with ethanol); but, then I hearken back to the "evolution" of diesel in Europe and wonder if there (now -- this month -- with the beginning of clean "petrol-diesel" coming on line) can be any parallels.
The question stands -- what was the time frame to get Europe to 1 in 3?
Or, if this is too much to ask here on this blog -- any URL's that might shed some light?
Still, even as attractive (to me, and maybe ONLY to me) as diesels MAY prove to be
Me too! I don't see myself settling for a gas car after owning a diesel car. Gas engines just don't have that lowdown torque that makes highway driving a pleasure. Something you have to experience to understand.
I think we are already seeing a switch in the mindset of diehard ethanol addicts. They are posting information that shows how much more energy you get from biodiesel than ethanol, for each unit of fossil fuel energy used. It is a step forward. It will take time to convince a dense population of the advantages of diesel. They are so into their 0-60 MPH figures. I am more into the 35-75 MPH times. Having to listen to a screaming gas engine over the sounds of Mozart on XM radio is not my idea of pleasure driving. Even some of the hybrid owners complain of high whining gas engines when they are going up hill. That is not necessary if you design an engine properly.
I think we are already seeing a switch in the mindset of diehard ethanol addicts. They are posting information that shows how much more energy you get from biodiesel than ethanol, for each unit of fossil fuel energy used. It is a step forward. It will take time to convince a dense population of the advantages of diesel. They are so into their 0-60 MPH figures. I am more into the 35-75 MPH times. Having to listen to a screaming gas engine over the sounds of Mozart on XM radio is not my idea of pleasure driving. Even some of the hybrid owners complain of high whining gas engines when they are going up hill. That is not necessary if you design an engine properly.
Well, to clarify some of the numbers, the penetration rate of diesel passenger cars is about 3%, not .25%, if you measure it by new car registrations.
The 0.25% figure is the proportion of current diesel consumption that could be served by biodiesel if you used up all of the current surplus US soybean crop to make it. (This also assumes that you had the equipment to make all of this biodiesel, which also doesn't exist, and the vehicles to use it, which would require conversion.)
So again, if we are talking about alternative fuels (and no, diesel is not an alternative fuel, but a petroleum product), it seems that none of them currently can be produced in sufficient quantities and used in enough vehicles to make a meaningful impact. For both E85 ethanol and biodiesel, we'd need the vehicles to use it, production facilities and a LOT more biomass before it will do much at a national level. And my guess is that the free market alone won't ensure adoption, and may not make the price low enough for the market to embrace it. (We're going to have to paying a lot more for our tofu if biodiesel hits max production.)
The question stands -- what was the time frame to get Europe to 1 in 3?
Not sure how that helps if oil dependency and/or environment are the primary motivators for change. Unless you like diesel for its own sake (and obviously, some people do), is this a goal worth prioritizing?
And I don't think that Europeans had to "get" to a high ratio of diesel, Europeans have had tax policies favoring diesel for many decades. Europe has never had cheap gas, because it has always been a net oil importer, even with North Sea oil. It seems to be more of a diversification strategy (getting more use out of a barrel of oil) than anything else.
As it stands now, diesel already comprises about one-third of aggregate consumption of gas and diesel in the US, but the US diesel supply is going largely to trucks, so I suppose that the US is already reasonably diversified. But this doesn't make it self-sufficient, as we all know.
I think that the fundamental point is that at least in the short- to medium-term, there is no substitute for petroleum, so we will need to reduce consumption. In my mind, the only way to ensure that is to raise prices to such a level that consumers are motivated to use less, and automakers have an incentive to make more efficient cars that consumers will demand because of these high fuel prices.
I see hybrids as having a lot of potential, and you can't judge future hybrid performance by the current generation of vehicles. Just as we didn't assume that the Wright Brothers flight at Kitty Hawk illustrated the full potential of flight, so we can't presume that today's hybrids have hit their peak performance. Perhaps they will be integrated with diesel engines, too, and made to run on the alternative fuels (that we don't have...)
It's too early for a "late adoptor" like me to buy one, but there are other more adventurous consumers who will help to fund the R&D and pave the way to market. During that development process, I expect these cars to become more efficient, more mainstream, better to drive and cheaper to produce, thanks to scale economies as sales improve. That seems more effective than betting on alternative fuels that can't be produced in reasonable quantities, in diesels that consumers won't want or on pure electric cars that have absolutely no chance of success given their significant limitations.
I have posted some of the latest information containing what facts and best scientific information I can gather. The myths and falsehoods about renewable resources are many and bear the necessity of exposure for what they are. There are no simple answers to renewable energy requirements, but there are answers, short term and long term.
I have been using E10 for 3 years now in two vehicles with no apparent loss of any mileage, probably what the average driver in the USA will find out. As we merge new products into the ethanol plants such as additional cellulose products, the efficiency of production will increase and costs of ethanol production will decrease even more.
Costs to manufacture ethanol are now running about $1,00 a gallon according to the information from the manufacturing plants distribution, market forces on a so-far scarce product and just plain profit-taking have increased that for the time being -- so what. There are always start-up costs to roll out a nationwide program and the pressure to get E10 and E85 in all of the US instantly is a bit non realistic, it takes time to create the infrastructure.
As I have said, the problem should have been solved long ago, but the unique demands of America's fantastically large highway system, the absolute world importance of our breadbasket and our 3,000 mile by 1,500 mile coast to coast infrastructure are tremendously greater than the requirements of a temperamental Socialist Europe or the daunting fragmented landscape of Asia.
Solutions are either here or near, not "pie in the sky" wishes and dreams, but practical solutions being worked on in a positive vein by many Americans on a daily basis. As I travel this country I see a lot of poverty in the farmland, more and more land is unnecessary for production of crops. Our productivity per acre is enormous, but many million of acres are not the best there is and so sit idle: in the northeast, in new england, in the south, etc., but that land is not wasted, good land that just sleeps. Maybe, just maybe it will be awakened to things like Ethanol or Biodiesel renewable fuels. This country has the capacity to grow and produce biofuels in tremendous quantities that can power the world -- our new "growth" industry for the 21st century.
If our FFV or E10 using auto breaks down on the road, we get annoyed, but stand an excellent chance of getting it repaired and getting on with our lives, but it causes me to hesitate when it comes to repairing our Hybrids or Diesel autos -- out in the hinterland. Who will do it, and at what cost?
Spinning Straw into Fuel by Diane Greer April, 2005
In the Grimm Brother's fairy tale, Rumpelstiltskin spins straw into gold. Thanks to advances in biotechnology, researchers can now transform straw, and other plant wastes, into "green" gold - cellulosic ethanol. While chemically identical to ethanol produced from corn or soybeans, cellulose ethanol exhibits a net energy content three times higher than corn ethanol and emits a low net level of greenhouse gases. Recent technological developments are not only improving yields but also driving down production cost, bringing us nearer to the day when cellulosic ethanol could replace expensive, imported "black gold" with a sustainable, domestically produced biofuel.
Cellulosic ethanol has the potential to substantially reduce our consumption of gasoline. "It is at least as likely as hydrogen to be an energy carrier of choice for a sustainable transportation sector," say the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Union of Concerned Scientists in a joint statement. Major companies and research organizations are also realizing the potential. Shell Oil has predicted "the global market for biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol will grow to exceed $10 billion by 2012." A recent study funded by the Energy Foundation and the National Commission on Energy Policy, entitled "Growing Energy: How Biofuels Can Help End America's Oil Dependence", concluded "biofuels coupled with vehicle efficiency and smart growth could reduce the oil dependency of our transportation sector by two-thirds by 2050 in a sustainable way."
ISN'T ALL ETHANOL THE SAME?
Conventional ethanol and cellulosic ethanol are the same product, but are produced utilizing different feedstocks and processes. Conventional ethanol is derived from grains such as corn and wheat or soybeans. Corn, the predominant feedstock, is converted to ethanol in either a dry or wet milling process. In dry milling operations, liquefied corn starch is produced by heating corn meal with water and enzymes. A second enzyme converts the liquefied starch to sugars, which are fermented by yeast into ethanol and carbon dioxide. Wet milling operations separate the fiber, germ (oil), and protein from the starch before it is fermented into ethanol.
Cellulosic ethanol can be produced from a wide variety of cellulosic biomass feedstocks including agricultural plant wastes (corn stover, cereal straws, sugarcane bagasse), plant wastes from industrial processes (sawdust, paper pulp) and energy crops grown specifically for fuel production, such as switchgrass. Cellulosic biomass is composed of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin, with smaller amounts of proteins, lipids (fats, waxes and oils) and ash. Roughly, two-thirds of the dry mass of cellulosic materials are present as cellulose and hemicellulose. Lignin makes up the bulk of the remaining dry mass.
As with grains, processing cellulosic biomass aims to extract fermentable sugars from the feedstock. But the sugars in cellulose and hemicellulose are locked in complex carbohydrates called polysaccharides (long chains of monosaccharides or simple sugars). Separating these complex polymeric structures into fermentable sugars is essential to the efficient and economic production of cellulosic ethanol.
Two processing options are employed to produce fermentable sugars from cellulosic biomass. One approach utilizes acid hydrolysis to break down the complex carbohydrates into simple sugars. An alternative method, enzymatic hydrolysis, utilizes pretreatment processes to first reduce the size of the material to make it more accessible to hydrolysis. Once pretreated, enzymes are employed to convert the cellulosic biomass to fermentable sugars. The final step involves microbial fermentation yielding ethanol and carbon dioxide.
Grain based ethanol utilizes fossil fuels to produce heat during the conversion process, generating substantial greenhouse gas emissions. Cellulosic ethanol production substitutes biomass for fossil fuels, changing the emissions calculations, according to Michael Wang of Argonne National Laboratories. Wang has created a "Well to Wheel" (WTW) life cycle analysis model to calculate greenhouse gas emissions produced by fuels in internal combustion engines. Life cycle analyses look at the environmental impact of a product from its inception to the end of its useful life.
"The WTW model for cellulosic ethanol showed greenhouse gas emission reductions of about 80% [over gasoline]," said Wang. "Corn ethanol showed 20 to 30% reductions." Cellulosic ethanol's favorable profile stems from using lignin, a biomass by-product of the conversion operation, to fuel the process. "Lignin is a renewable fuel with no net greenhouse gas emissions," explains Wang. "Greenhouse gases produced by the combustion of biomass are offset by the CO2 absorbed by the biomass as it grows."
Feedstock sources and supplies are another important factor differentiating the two types of ethanol. Agricultural wastes are a largely untapped resource. This low cost feedstock is more abundant and contains greater potential energy than simple starches and sugars. Currently, agricultural residues are plowed back into the soil, composted, burned or disposed in landfills. As an added benefit, collection and sale of crop residues offer farmers a new source of income from existing acreage.
Industrial wastes and municipal solid waste (MSW) can also be used to produce ethanol. Lee Lynd, an engineering professor at Dartmouth, has been working with the Gorham Paper Mill to convert paper sludge to ethanol. "Paper sludge is a waste material that goes into landfills at a cost of $80/dry ton," says Lynd. "This is genuinely a negative cost feedstock. And it is already pretreated, eliminating a step in the conversion process."
Masada Oxynol is planning a facility in Middletown, New York, to process MSW into ethanol. After recovering recyclables, acid hydrolysis will be employed to convert the cellulosic materials into sugars. "The facility will provide both economic and environmental value," explains David Webster, Executive Vice President of Masada. From an environmental standpoint, the process reduces or eliminates the landfilling of wastes. By-products of the process include gypsum, lignin and fly ash. "Under normal operations, enough lignin will be recovered to make the plant self-sufficient in energy," notes Webster.
Perennial grasses, such as switchgrass, and other forage crops are promising feedstocks for ethanol production. "Environmentally switchgrass has some large benefits and the potential for productivity increases," says John Sheehan of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The perennial grass has a deep root system, anchoring soils to prevent erosion and helping to build soil fertility. "As a native species, switchgrass is better adapted to our climate and soils," adds Nathanael Criers, NRDC Senior Policy Analyst. "It uses
Comments
Come now, I already posted an article from Edmunds that indicates that Toyota will have US-market FFV vehicles by 2008.
To have an honest discussion, we should account for the data that has already been presented, assuming the sources are credible. Edmunds tends to be good at this stuff, so I have no reason to believe that Toyota doesn't intend to follow through.
Again, you know that Toyota is not going to promote E85 today when it doesn't currently sell a car in the US that uses it. TMC will promote the product that it is selling, not what GM is selling.
And what is your point? No one is asking anyone to use biodiesel. The thread is about Ethanol and more specifically E85 and the impact on our fuel economy. I would not be here posting if Ethanol was a grass roots industry as it has been for 30 years. It is the mandate that the ethanol industry cannot keep up with that has me concerned. What happens when you go to the gas station and they are out waiting for a shipment of corn squeezing's to add to the regular unleaded? I would pitch a big fit to my Senators if they had mandated that all diesel vehicles must use B20. You keep trying to turn the discussion into a biodiesel vs ethanol. They are for the most part unrelated. We are just coming out of the throes of the MTBE mandate, and Congress in their well subsidized tradition throw us the Ethanol mandate.
If you follow the whole thread you will know that was in response to the exact same issue. The results of a cross country mileage run between the Jetta TDI and the Prius was already the topic of a long discussion on another thread. So I threw my question that has no answer in response. I found it interesting that the Toyota FFV article did not make any reference to making the hybrids FFVs. In fact TMC was very evasive about the whole subject. I believe they are in the same line of thinking that I have. Why bother with ethanol, it will take a big hit and die as it did 30 years ago, both here and Brazil. Some folks never learn.
You might want to consider some of your earlier comments. #440:
I have advocated diesel cars & smaller PU trucks using biodiesel going back at least 5 years. Biodiesel is a solution that does not need subsidies to be beneficial.
I just posted data that given current conditions, biodiesel would at best provide for one-quarter of one percent of the US's current diesel consumption.
So why do you continually make this claim of the product being "beneficial", when there is far less potential for it in its current form than for this other product that is already in wider distribution?
I am assuming you are talking about gasoline. The beauty of biodiesel is you can become totally independent of the oil industry. Ethanol in its current form cannot. There are many folks using B100 and not using any of OPEC's oil. I never said it would work for all of us. It is better than nothing and a solution to the problem for a few of the brighter folks in the country. For those that are happy with their gas cars, SUVs and trucks fine. Just give those of us that would like a True alternative the opportunity. Don't force anything down our tanks. What you drive is your decision. Just don't try to make my decision for me. Anyone that advocates a mandate such as the current ethanol mandate is trying to force their views onto the rest of us.
Nothing you have posted has refuted my claim that biodiesel can be beneficial. As some here would say show me the data that biodiesel is a bad alternative to diesel. I have posted plenty of research that ethanol from CORN is detrimental to our environment.
When those here ask about real-world data for ethanol, do you honestly think they'll accept just a single highway-only test like that one?
Real-World means actual driving. That's a mix of city, suburb, and highway. It must include all of the seasons too.
I have 55,600 miles of data using E10 in my Prius. That's real-world. The diesel claims are empty, virtually nothing to actually support them. Talking about the lack of a plan.
JOHN
Er, how do you plan on doing that when I've already shown you that given current circumstances, we only have enough soybeans to produce 0.25% of current US diesel consumption?
For your claim to be valid, some things would have to first happen:
-Diesel demand would have to plummet through the floor, so that production becomes a relatively higher percentage of our total fuel needs. If we reduced our use of diesel by 99.75%, then we could use soybeans to become self-sufficient and use no more petroleum-diesel.
-Some biomass better be found that can make up for the lack of soybeans, being that we don't have enough soybeans to make it happen.
I'm going to repeat this number: 99.75%. That's a bit different from independence, isn't it?
Is this what you mean? Here is a fellow like yourself that has a website devoted to his car a VW TDI.
What makes my '98 Jetta special besides the engine?Although I'm a bit of a leadfoot and compete in SCCA events, my lifetime average economy over 204,000-miles is about 43-mpg.
http://www.stealthtdi.com/
So when your Prius gets to 200k miles we can compare with a VW TDI for overall mileage.
One car at a time! Are you doing your part to stick it to OPEC? There are many people and companies that give more than lip service to this goal.
Kettle Chips is doing something without subsidies to cut down on our usage of fossil fuel.
We use our cooking oil twice! The second time it powers several of our company cars in the form of biodiesel. Find out how we recycle our oils into an alternative fuel.
http://www.kettlefoods.com/index.php?cID=227
Remember?
Couldn't the govt give subsidies to GROW corn, vs NOT growing it.
Wouldn't that make ethanol closer to being economically possible.
Sir, you have to build rational arguments. I talked about sugar beets before, but then I am not a farmer...was it 300 acres in Minnesota or 3 acres in CA that you tried to farm? You have stated both. Any renewable resource is a lot better than trying to destroy this country as the oil cartel is.
I worked for the largest computer company in the world for 30 years and we all chuckled when the failing companies with no ideas always whined about how "we hurt them." Demagoguery is an old game. This not an anarchist/ socialist country and large companies like ADM, DC, GM, Ford and others survive very well in our democracy, the ups and downs of a corporation can be followed daily in the Wall Street Journal.
I really do not care to respond to your comments. People here are trying to understand the facts of this debate. I try to quote responsible organizations, states, companies and legislative parties, not every blog on the internet.
Couldn't the govt give subsidies to GROW corn, vs NOT growing it.
Wouldn't that make ethanol closer to being economically possible
Good thought...a positive statement.
FREDERIC J. FROMMER
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - With the market for corn-based ethanol booming, lawmakers from sugar-producing states like Minnesota and Florida are hoping that beet and cane growers can soon jump onto the renewable fuel bandwagon.
They cite the model of Brazil, which produces ethanol made from sugar cane. But critics, pointing out that sugar is much cheaper in Brazil than in the United States, question whether the economics of sugar-based ethanol would work in this country.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture is expected to issue a long-awaited study around July 1 on the viability of converting sugar into ethanol.
Keith Collins, the USDA's chief economist, said that the soaring demand for ethanol and Brazil's successful track record make it worth discussing sugar-based ethanol here.
"At some point in the future it may be worthy of commercial development," he said. "Technologically, it's possible. The question is: is it economically feasible?"
Collins noted that besides cheaper sugar, Brazil has higher yields per acre because of better climate and investment in more-productive strains of sugar cane.
"So, obviously, we can look at the technology of conversion, and learn some things from them about that," Collins said. "But it's a little hard for us just to look at Brazil and conclude that their structure of production would be our structure of production. We can't conclude that."
Sugar in this country is made from two sources: beets in some northern and western states, and cane in a few southern states, including Hawaii. Minnesota is the largest producer of sugar produced from beets, while Florida leads in sugar from cane, according to the American Sugar Alliance, a trade group.
There is skepticism among some sugar growers that ethanol is a viable end product for their crop.
"If I was going to guess, I would say the economics are not going to be there," said Steve Williams, president of the American Sugar Beet Growers Association, who farms about 700 acres of sugar beets in Fisher, Minn. "The food value is better for sugar than for ethanol."
But backers see room for growth in the ethanol area, especially if oil prices remain high.
"It would be absurd in 10 years if we're doing 60 billion gallons of ethanol, and the only crop in America that's not participating is sugar," said Sen. Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican and one of Congress' leading champions of sugar-based ethanol.
"What I'm saying is you gotta look beyond where you are today," he added. "We're moving into a period where ethanol is going to play a major part in cutting dependence on foreign oil."
But not all Minnesota lawmakers agree that there is a future for sugar-based ethanol in the U.S.
Rep. Collin Peterson, a Democrat whose Minnesota district includes many of the state's sugar beet growers, called the idea an "empty promise." Peterson, the ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, argued the Brazil model won't work in the U.S. due to the difference in sugar prices.
Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, tried unsuccessfully last year to get the Senate to require refineries across the country to use 100 million gallons of sugar-based ethanol a year.
"It's not going to happen unless there is a push from Congress with the incentives," Nelson said, short of a major disruption in the oil supply to the U.S.
Coleman and Nelson are backing legislation sponsored by Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., that would encourage the use of renewable fuels, including the 100 million-gallon mandate for sugar-based ethanol.
Jack Roney, an economist with the American Sugar Alliance, agreed that the government would need to step in to stimulate a sugar-to-ethanol industry.
"It would take a combination of consumption mandates to ensure that the demand would be there, and conceivably some production incentives to use sugar ethanol," he said.
"The way that the Brazilians established their program is through 30 years of government intervention in energy and agriculture markets, to ensure there would be adequate demand and supplies."
Roney said his group is open to the idea of a sugar-to-ethanol industry, but would insist it not replace the U.S. sugar program, which guarantees minimum prices to cane and beet farmers and limits sugar imports.
They are paying huge subsidies to grow corn and to make ethanol from the corn. That is why this debate is so heated. We are wasting tax dollars on a dead pony. Of course those that benefit in the Midwest are happy like those in the South with tobacco allotments.
Stills are still legal
Custom handcrafted copper moonshine stills forged by an old timer here in the Ozark mountains of Arkansas. Old fashion craftsmanship combined with modern distilling technology makes these the finest copper moonshine stills available. All copper moonshine stills with brass fittings makes for the best thermal conductivity offered by precious metals. Copper has over four times the thermal conductivity of it's closest rival, stainless steel. It also has a good reputation for removing toxins because of it's natural acidic nature, giving a fresh brisk taste to food and beverages. Copper is the world wide industrial standard for distilleries, breweries and candy manufactures. Tried and true for thousands of years. Only pure 99.9%+ copper is used. The highest purity ever in history. Forged with nontoxic spilter only. These all copper moonshine stills have also been purchased for restaurant decor and in night clubs to dispense drinks. Its illegal to distill alcohol without a license or permit.
You can get a free moonshine fuel permit from the Federal government.
The IRS will pay you 30 to 60 cents for every gallon of fuel ethanol that you produce.
Some states have changed there laws making it easier for the average person to get a commercial license for spirits. All copper moonshine stills and equipment are sold as art decor only. Buyers assume any and all liability.
Will custom build any size shape or design of copper moonshine still that you can think of. Just dream it up and we'll give you a quote. Large orders may require a deposit.
Contact Colonel Wilson by email or call by phone.
Click here to contact by email or call the Colonel at 479 414 3220 or hers 479 997 5289 8am to 10pm any day.
How To Order
Email or call to place an order. You can pay by Paypal, cashiers check or by money order. To use Visa or Master Card, click on the Paypal icon at the bottom of this page and sign up for a Paypal account.
It's only a webpage with a summary. Where's the detail? Data is lots of numbers, not just one.
By the way, it's 4.7 MPG lower than the average of the 692 Prius listed on the GH database. So even the summary alone makes diesel look bad. What's your point... especially since it isn't even the vehicle I asked about in the first place.
JOHN
My point is, that over 204,000 miles he averaged 43 MPG. I don't see anyone at even a 100k miles reporting their accumulated mileage for either Prius on GH. There are a few at 50K or there abouts. I want to know how the car runs and what repairs have been done to it after it reaches 10 years or 200k miles. Is that too much to ask. I believe you are being picky for no reason. There is a TDI website that has far more information. It is not permissible to link it. There are hundreds of VW TDI owners just as enthusiastic about their cars as you are about yours.
The big difference is I don't see the hybrid hatred on that site that the hybrid sites show toward diesel cars. Both technologies are saving fossil fuel. Why the animosity? Just like many people here would never own a VW, there are many that would never own a Toyota. That does not mean that either is inferior to the other.
Of course E85 is yet to be proven of any value. No absolute proof that it produces more energy than it takes to grow & produce.
Because diesel only addresses one problem. It is an imcomplete solution.
The other goal is to reduce smog-related emissions. Not only doesn't diesel do that, it actually makes them worse. Even oridinary gas vehicles are cleaner. Using ethanol makes them better. Combine that with hybrid technology, you have a real winner.
With 60,000,000 new vehicles on the road worldwide each year, allowing dirtier emissions just plain does not make any sense.
As for saving fuel, why are you still in denial that the next generation of hybrid will be even more efficient?
JOHN
At what cost? Each hybrid Toyota has brought out is more expensive. That is not practical for wealthy Americans let alone poorer countries. So far hybrids have done little to save on fuel. The Prius does well on fuel savings, yet it is still far from a proven long lived technology. Not everyone can justify a new vehicle every few years. I seriously doubt with the problems that have cropped up with the hybrids that any of them will be with us as long as the last generation of Camry. As my earlier post shows the VW TDI is a long lived fuel miser. When ULSD is common they will be cleaner in many ways than gas cars. That is where I see denial on your part. There is no way you can get more energy out of a gallon of gas than a gallon of diesel. And we all know that ethanol is of little use other than an oxygenate. And the benefits of that are questionable.
Priuses command a high price because they are being marketed to innovators interested in technology and to those with an environmental orientation, not to price-conscious shoppers. Current inventories are low enough that they basically are pre-sold or sell with a few days or arrival, without discounting.
They will be marketed later to price-oriented pragmatists as the technology matures and production increases to stabilized levels. There's no reason to do that now, as it would actually devalue it in the eyes of the marketplace.
The Prius does well on fuel savings, yet it is still far from a proven long lived technology.
The Prius is more reliable than a Jetta. As much as I like VW's as a driver's car, Toyota reliability beats VW hands down.
How many serious problems has the Jetta TDI had compared to the Prius both generations? I'll give you a hint the Prius II is on it's second recall as we post. Maybe you should back up your statements with more than CR propaganda. Just because Toyota has a good reputation for reliability does not make all Toyota cars reliable. The current recall is for 170,000 Prius for possible steering failure. None here but a few in Japan. And have you forgotten all the stalled Prius on the highways that required a NHTSA investigation to get Toyota off the dime. I follow the VW TDI threads and the biggest problems I see there are fuel related issues and electric window failures. Hardly as significant as the Prius problems.
You don't really want to recycle that unproven canard, do you?
We've gone over these allegations elsewhere on this site, and none of you have ever backed it up with any data. If you're going to make the claim, you need to back it up.
Vehicle: 2005 Volkswagen Jetta
Defect Description:
ON CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES, THE HIGH PRESSURE DIESEL PUMPS WERE PRODUCED WITH AN IMPROPER FASTENER, WHICH COULD ALLOW DIESEL FUEL TO ESCAPE FROM THE PUMP.
Consequence of Defect:
DIESEL FUEL IN THE PRESENCE OF AN IGNITION SOURCE MAY LEAD TO A FIRE.
Corrective Action:
DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE DIESEL PUMP. THE RECALL IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN DURING FEBRUARY 2005. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT VOLKSWAGEN AT 1-800-822-2834.
Again, you can't just look at the problems and issues of the things that you don't like. You also have to compare directly to the stuff that you do like.
Ethanol is an American solution to renewable fuels that lessens our dependencies on oil producing dictators and stops the obstructionists that want to deny us any relief from oil dependence. It uses autos that are currently being produced for E10 and FFVs that use E85 that have the same cost as non-FFV autos. Of course ethanol has a larger base than Biodiesel because diesels are an infitestimal percentage of currently available autos with almost absolutely no infrastructure for their support...they are a nice alternative, if they can ever make them meet government regulations, but are only a tiny niche that has very little future as of now.
Recently a British TV program listed the worst handling (and least safe based on that characteristic) cars in the world. The Prius was a proud member of that list, apparently being unable to negotiate a turn that had been wetted down -- the car continued in, essentially, a straight direction despite the attempts to make it turn on the wet pavement.
This is certainly not the fault of its propulsion system, but is, in part, something that needs to be addressed, sooner rather than later.
=======
Perhaps more on topic:
=======
As I continue to read here and elsewhere, there is at least one common theme: 70% of the fuel we use to propel our vehicles will be petroleum for decades, probably generations to come.
Raising MPG's needs to be a priority (DOH!) since cutting back seems unlikely. Ethanol (E85) will have difficulty based on what we know and know how to do today helping this goal move forward.
Nobody will care if ethanol gets worse mileage if the cost drops at least to "cover" the delta between the lower mileage and the cost of gasoline.
If E85 without any subsidy can be cranked out at $3.00 per gallon at retail, most people would be OK with the price and then when the MPG's were factored in would, eventually if not immediately, think a 30% loss of MPG's is a bit like burning paper money to keep warm when there are other less expensive sources of fuel to burn to keep warm.
Perhaps E85 will be somehow made (without subsidies) to cost at least $.50 less per gallon than gasloline -- if that happens (and more) perhaps ethanol as we now know it can make a dent in stretching our petroleum reserves at a planetary level.
Big corn vs big oil, too, seems to be a battle that will wage for some time to come.
What would happen "if" we starting allowing oil companies to look for oil in places they are currently not allowed to look? Some claim the risk is that nothing will be found and that at least with the resources spent to develop alternatives that we will have some energy.
Of course, the time when we can economically get the oil reserves already known [in the US] out of the ground in the Colorado, Wyoming, etc area (Rand Study) continues to move nearer and nearer. But, gee, somewhere between 20 and 40 years (based on what we now know) still not only seems, but is, a long time away.
We're doomed. Let's not even bother. :surprise:
Homer
BLOOMBERG NEWS
Mark Oberle, chief financial officer of ethanol maker Corn Plus LLP, is sitting out his industry's biggest building boom in a quarter century, and Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates may wish he'd done the same.
Within two years, planned expansion by ethanol producers will push U.S. supplies past demand, according to Standard & Poor's.
"The danger of a glut is very real," said J. Stephan Dolezalek, a partner at San Bruno, Calif.-based VantagePoint Venture Partners, a venture capital firm with stakes in three Midwest distilleries.
Overproduction may sour investments such as Gates' $84 million stake in Pacific Ethanol Inc., which hasn't produced fuel yet. The same may be true for shares of VeraSun Energy Corp., which this week raised $419.8 million, more than expected, in its initial public offering.
Producers are planning to expand after ethanol prices soared to records in response to government rules requiring more of the additive in gasoline. President Bush and former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan also have said ethanol may be an alternative to fuel made from petroleum.
"The feel-good factor in the ethanol industry is very high right now," said Venkataraman Sreekanth, manager of North American energy analysis at Frost & Sullivan Inc., a San Jose, Calif.-based consulting firm.
Advances in technology in ethanol production process has substantially reduced costs. A shift to larger production plants along with improved yeast strains and enzymes have reduced cost by more than 50 percent. These innovations have lowered production costs from $1.40 per gallon in 1980 to less than $1.00 in 2001. Still newer plants and improved technologies have further reduced costs to an approximate current average of $1.09 to produce one gallon of ethanol. This trend is expected to continue. The cost of producing ethanol will also be affected by corn yields, corn costs, and markets for co-products.
Consumer prices at the service station pump for E-10 ethanol blend is usually the same price per gallon as unblended fuel. This is also true for E-85 blends. The
price at the retail gas pump reflects federal and state tax exemptions, loan guarantees, and other government subsidies.
Offsetting the cost of these tax incentives is a reduction in farm subsidies and the increase of tax revenues. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, if ethanol use does not continue to grow, "deficiency payments for corn and other program crops will increase by $580 million for crop year 1998 and $740 million by the year 2000"-more than the cost of the tax incentives. The economic activity attributable to the ethanol industry will generate $3.5 billion in
additional income tax revenue over the next five years -- $1 billion more than the cost of tax exemptions. The U.S. ethanol industry will create a net gain to the taxpayers of almost $4 billion over the next five years.
The oil industry began receiving federal subsidies as early as 1916 to promote development of an energy industry. As the oil industry became more profitable,
the subsidy payments continued. In 1984, the oil industry received over $8.5 billion from the federal government. During the same time period, renewable fuel industries -- solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower, and alcohol fuels --
received only $l.7 billion.
How does it accomplish that when it takes as much Saudi oil to produce ethanol as you get back. It is just not practical and the American public is getting the shaft from both OPEC and the Mega Farmers.
The concept of "input efficiencies for fossil energy sources" was introduced as a component of the study. This was meant to account for the fossil energy used to extract, transport and manufacture the raw material (crude oil) into the final energy product (gasoline). According to the study, gasoline has an energy ratio of 0.805. In other words, for every unit of energy dedicated to the production of gasoline there is a 19.5 percent energy loss.
In summary, the finished liquid fuel energy yield for fossil fuel dedicated to the production of ethanol is 1.34 but only 0.74 for gasoline. In other words the energy yield of ethanol is (1.34/0.74) or 81 percent greater than the comparable yield for gasoline.
Bio-Diesel versus Petroleum DieselA similar study was co-sponsored by the United States Department of Energy and the USDA, entitled, "Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus."
The study, published in May 1998, states; "Biodiesel yields 3.2 units of fuel product energy for every unit of fossil energy consumed in its life cycle." The report continues, "By contrast, Petroleum diesel's life cycle yields only 0.83 units of fuel energy per unit of fossil energy consumed." According to this analysis, the energy yield of biodiesel is (3.2/0.83) 280 percent greater than petroleum diesel fuel.
Summary - Energy Balance/Energy Life Cycle Inventory
Fuel * Energy yield Net Energy (loss) or gain
Gasoline 0.805 (19.5 percent)
Diesel 0.843 (15.7 percent)
Ethanol 1.34 34 percent
Biodiesel 3.20 220 percent
* Life cycle yield in liquid fuel Btus for each Btu of fossil fuel energy consumed.
The positive energy ratio displayed by ethanol and biodiesel is accounted for by the contribution of solar energy collected by the crop from which the fuel is made. This energy is considered "renewable" because a new crop is raised each year. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, originate from fossilized plants and animals stored beneath the earth's surface in a process that took millions of years.
Another consideration discussed in the 2002 net energy report relates to the specific demand for liquid fuels and the relative abundance of energy sources used to make these renewable fuels. The report explains, "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."
I agree with the premise of this article. The fact is there will not be too much ethanol for the mandate. The price will be too high to compete.
• US is 'not ready' for Chávez oil ban threat
• High oil prices could be here to stay
• Hugo Chavez blames U.S. for high oil prices
• Oil Company Execs: Fuel Relatively Cheap
Updated: 6:32 p.m. CT June 14, 2006
WASHINGTON - Tight oil markets and little spare production capacity worldwide make the United States more vulnerable today to a cutoff of Venezuelan oil than three years ago when a strike curtailed Venezuelan supplies, a congressional study warns.
The report by the Government Accountability Office says a Venezuelan oil embargo against the United States would cause oil prices immediately to jump by $4 to $6 a barrel and increase gasoline prices at the pump by 11 to 15 cents a gallon.
A six-month loss of 2.2 million barrels a day of Venezuelan production — about what was lost during the strike by Venezuelan oil workers during the winter of 2002-03 — could cause a price spike of $11 a barrel and cut U.S. economic output by $23 billion, the report said, citing an Energy Department computer model analysis.
Another tidbit I agree with. How much better is biodiesel than ethanol per your posting? If your article is correct and for every BTU of fossil energy expended you get 1.34 BTUs of ethanol energy. And you do the same for biodiesel and every BTU of energy produces 3.2 BTUs of energy, that seems pretty conclusive as to where the best alternative fuel lies. Getting close to 2.5 times the energy from biodiesel that you get from ethanol with the same amount of fossil fuel expended seems like a no brainer to me. Why not plant soy beans instead of corn. Or better yet Rapeseed yields a higher grade of biodiesel.
http://mauigreenenergy.org/guess%20who.htm
http://www.bio-beetle.com/
Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Monday, June 12, 2006
(06-12) 04:00 PDT Washington -- California has lagged in the national ethanol boom, but that is changing in a big way. If cars and trucks that can run largely on ethanol get a toehold in the state, advocates say, the sky's the limit for the market of the fuel additive.
"Ethanol production looks really, really bright in California,'' said Tom Koehler, vice president of Fresno-based Pacific Ethanol Inc., a publicly traded company that's nearing completion on a 35 million-gallon-a-year corn-based ethanol plant in Madera in the Central Valley.
The new plant will more than double the state's existing output. Three plants with a capacity of 33.5 million gallons a year are producing ethanol from corn or from food and beverage waste material, but that's a drop in the bucket of the 900 million gallons used in California annually, according to state Energy Commission data.
The vast majority of the state's ethanol, used since 2004 to replace the groundwater-polluting additive MTBE in gasoline, is imported from the Midwest.
But much more production in the state is anticipated. Pacific Ethanol plans four more plants in the Central Valley using corn brought in by rail from the Midwest, Koehler said. His company is chaired by former California Secretary of State Bill Jones.
Among Pacific Ethanol's investors is Microsoft tycoon Bill Gates, who has put $84 million through his Cascade Investment firm into the company.
The state Energy Commission says a host of other projects are in the works. A startup company, Calgren Renewable Fuels, is due to break ground on a 40 million-gallon plant in Hanford (Kings County) this summer. And it's considering another plant in Pixley (Tulare County).
Santa Maria-based American Ethanol envisions a giant 500 million-gallon corn-based facility in Santa Barbara County.
And a host of proposals using crops other than corn are in development, the commission said. These include a plan by the city of Gridley (Butte County) to brew locally grown rice straw into ethanol and plans by investors to turn municipal waste into ethanol in Santa Maria, Riverside and Santa Barbara.
A company called Nova Fuels in Fresno wants to use wood to brew ethanol in Riverside County.
Ethanol, which is used as a clean-air additive, makes up 5.6 percent of the gasoline pumped in the state.
And that could increase if Californians start buying so-called E85 vehicles capable of running on regular gas or a mixture of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gas. About 200,000 of the vehicles have already been sold in the state, out of roughly 5 million nationwide, but there is only one gas station, in San Diego, with an E85 pump open to the public.
The state Air Resources Board has certified E85 for use in the state. "We are actively supporting it,'' said spokesman Jerry Martin.
That puts the board at odds with the Energy Commission, which would rather boost ethanol consumption by requiring that it make up 10 percent of all gas sold in the state.
"We think that would be more effective because all cars can use 10 percent ethanol but only a small percentage can use E85,'' said commission spokesman Rob Schlichting.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he would like to see more E85 vehicles and an increase in ethanol use in all gas, so that will probably be the state's course.
That raises the question of when more E85 stations will open.
For General Motors, which has become a major advocate of E85 vehicles, the new pumps can't come too soon.
"It's a chicken-and-egg situation,'' said Dave Barthmuss, GM's North America public policy issues manager. "We hope the prospects are great. We want to demonstrate that if you put in pumps, we will work with you.''
But so far, gas stations don't detect much movement toward E85. "It's in the very preliminary stages,'' said Bob Oyster, who owns eight Shell stations and a Chevron outlet located from Sacramento to Menlo Park. "Chevron has talked about it, but nobody is saying they're going to come and convert some of your pumps.''
Leif Sollid of Chevron, the state's largest gas retailer, said any decision on installing E85 pumps will await results from a pilot program involving about 100 vehicles in which Chevron's partners include GM and Pacific Ethanol. "What we learn from this yearlong project will help us determine how to proceed,'' he said.
for National Geographic News
January 26, 2006
Amid growing concerns about unstable oil supplies and the impact of fossil fuels on global warming, biofuels are receiving increased attention.
A new study now suggests that the most important biofuel—ethanol, which is made from corn in the United States—is more energy efficient than previously thought.
Some prior studies have suggested that ethanol production may consume more energy—from nonrenewable sources—than is available in the resulting fuel.
But a reexamination of those studies show that current corn-ethanol production technologies are far less petroleum-intensive than gasoline, though both fuels have similar greenhouse gas emissions.
"The doomsdayers are wrong," said Alexander Farrell, the lead study author and an assistant professor in the Energy and Resources Group at the University of California, Berkeley. "We show that the net energy is in fact positive for corn ethanol."
He later added that to "really evaluate this fuel we need to look at other indicators like petroleum and greenhouse gas emission."
Farrell and other scientists say that new technology could dramatically boost the environmental performance of ethanol.
Fuel Mix
Ethanol is used as a motor fuel additive. It is a renewable energy source, unlike petroleum and coal.
In the United States, ethanol accounts for about 2 percent of total transportation fuel. In Brazil, where ethanol is produced from sugarcane, the fuel powers the majority of the country's road transport.
About 5 percent of the road fuels used in the United States and the European Union are expected to be bio-derived within the next five years. The U.S. Department of Energy aims to replace 30 percent of the liquid petroleum transportation fuel with biofuels by 2025.
This misleading report needs to be addressed separately. I think they are referring to the diesel used in the tractor plowing the field to plant the corn. It leaves out the other fossil fuels that the report claims are plentiful. Most of which is natural gas used to produce the fertilizer that is needed to get any yield out of soil that is depleted by poor farm management. Without massive amounts of anhydrous ammonia those farms would not even grow corn. If it was only destroying the corn fields of Iowa I would say no big loss. Those nitrates that are leached into the streams and rivers are destroying fisheries as far away as the Mississippi Delta.
What say you about that mr. seniorjose?
What makes ethanol-enriched fuel better for the environment?
Truth is, choosing ethanol-enriched fuel at the pump is one of the easiest ways you can help reduce pollution and help us all breathe a little easier!
And unlike other alternatives that are being talked about and studied, fuel enriched with ethanol is available right now in many areas of the country.
So you can do your part for the environment today.
BETTER FOR THE AIR
Ethanol is an oxygenate — meaning it contains oxygen — which helps regular gasoline burn more cleanly. That’s why gasoline enriched with ethanol burns cleaner, more completely and more efficiently with lower carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon tailpipe emissions.
Think of it! When you choose ethanol-enriched fuel, you’ll improve the air we all breathe because ethanol:
Reduces harmful tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide by as much as 30%.
Reduces particulate matter emissions by more than 25%.
Reduces oxides of nitrogen.
Reduces toxic emissions by 30%.
Reduces exhaust volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions by 12%.
Reduces ozone-forming pollutants.
That’s why cities with air-pollution problems require the use of oxygenated fuels like ethanol.
The facts are clear:
10% ethanol-enriched fuel reduces carbon monoxide better than any other reformulated gasoline — by as much as 30%. Choosing even a 10% ethanol-enriched fuel results in a 35 – 46% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
E85 has the highest oxygen content of any fuel available, making it burn more cleanly and more completely than any other fuel.
BETTER FOR GROUNDWATER
You may have heard about MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) — a fuel oxygenate derived from petroleum — which used to be one of the best-selling oxygenates in the world. Today, MTBE is banned in many states because it has been shown to contaminate groundwater, and it is listed as a possible carcinogen. But don’t worry. Ethanol is a great alternative because it’s highly biodegradable and nontoxic.
THE ISSUE OF ENERGY BALANCE
It takes energy to produce energy. The key is to “get” more energy out of the final product than it “takes” to make it.
According to a 2004 USDA study, the production of ethanol creates more than 67 percent more energy than it takes to make it. And other studies have come to similar conclusions. So when you consider that ethanol is helping expand our fuel supply, it clearly is a net energy winner — wouldn’t you agree?
RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE
Unlike fossil fuels that take thousands of years to form, ethanol is completely renewable, made from crops grown right here in the United States. According to many experts, fossil-fuel sources will be depleted in 50 years. So a renewable resource like ethanol is a long-term alternative — which can help us all breathe a sigh of relief, because we know it can be available when we need it.
by Robert D. Libra
The Mississippi River has long been an important transportation route for Iowa products. For decades, river barges have provided a relatively low-cost way to export the bounty from the state’s farms, factories, and woodlands to the Gulf of Mexico and the world beyond. However, recent studies have highlighted an unintended export from Iowa and the rest of the Corn Belt to the Gulf, one that may be helping to generate a condition that limits the productivity of some of the Gulf’s fisheries. This export is nitrogen, and the condition is called "hypoxia."
Hypoxia describes a zone of poorly oxygenated water that occurs along the Louisiana Gulf coast, and that may be growing more extensive. While the causes of hypoxia are still under debate, many marine scientists are convinced that an increase in the delivery of nutrients, particularly nitrogen, to the Gulf is at the heart of the problem. Nitrogen increases the production of tiny marine phytoplankton whose life cycle reduces the amount of oxygen available for fish and shrimp. Fish and shrimp populations decline in response to this less favorable environment.
The Mississippi River provides the bulk of the runoff to the Gulf, taking the drainage from 40% of the continental U.S. and funneling it southward. This impressive volume of water averages almost 140 cubic miles per year, enough to cover Iowa to a depth of 13 feet. It carries with it an equally impressive amount of nitrogen, estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey to average 1.65 million tons/year since 1980, with most of the nitrogen, about 1 million tons/year, in the form of the chemical compound nitrate (NO3). When researchers look up-river for the sources of this nitrate, they find no shortage. The list of suspects includes human waste, industrial activities, and input from rain. However, most attention has focused on agricultural practices and sources, such as fertilizer, manure, legume production, and mineralization of soil nitrogen, all of which account for most of the nitrogen added to the Mississippi basin. The largest agricultural input occurs in the Corn Belt, and the greatest delivery of nitrate to the Mississippi River appears to be from Corn Belt states. Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey suggest that over 60% of the River’s nitrate load is derived from sources north of St. Louis.
http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/inforsch/nitraten/nitraten.htm
One of the most controversial issues relating to ethanol (and more recently to biodiesel as well) is what environmentalists call the "net energy" of ethanol production: is more energy used to grow and process the raw material into ethanol than is contained in the ethanol itself?
It's especially controversial in the US. In the US most ethanol is made from corn (maize), which is far from the best energy crop (Brazil uses sugar cane). Nonetheless, a US Department of Agriculture study concludes that ethanol contains 34% more energy than is used to grow and harvest the corn and distill it into ethanol.
"Estimating the Net Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol", by Hosein Shapouri et al., US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Office of Energy and New Uses, Agricultural Economic Report No. 721, July 1995 -- "Studies conducted since the late 1970s have estimated the net energy value of corn ethanol. However, variations in data and assumptions used among the studies have resulted in a wide range of estimates. This study identifies the factors causing this wide variation and develops a more consistent estimate... We show that corn ethanol is energy efficient as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.24."
"The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update", by Hosein Shapouri and James A. Duffield, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, and Michael Wang of the Center for Transportation Research, Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory. Agricultural Economic Report No. 813, 2002: "Corn ethanol is energy efficient... For every BTU dedicated to producing ethanol there is a 34% energy gain... Only about 17% 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."
In "How Much Energy Does It Take to Make a Gallon of Ethanol?", David Lorenz and David Morris of the Institute for Local-Self Reliance (ILSR) state: "Using the best farming and production methods, the amount of energy contained in a gallon of ethanol is more than twice the energy used to grow the corn and convert it to ethanol." A 1992 ILSR study, based on actual energy consumption data from farmers and ethanol plant operators, found that the production of ethanol from corn is a positive net energy generator. In this updated paper the numbers look even more attractive: more energy is contained in the ethanol and the other by-products of corn processing than is used to grow the corn and convert it into ethanol and by-products.
New study confronts old thinking on ethanol's net energy value, 3/28/2005 -- Ethanol generates 35% more energy than it takes to produce, according to a recent study by Argonne National Laboratory conducted by Michael Wang. The new findings support earlier research that determined ethanol has a positive net energy balance, according to the National Corn Growers Association. That research was conducted by USDA, Michigan State University, the Colorado School of Mines, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and other public and private entities. Argonne is one of the US Department of Energy's largest research centers.
A USDA study released in 2004 found that ethanol may net as much as 67% more energy than it takes to produce.
Ethanol may clean up the smelly air in Iowa. Does it help you sleep better knowing you are destroying the land, rivers & Gulf with your toxic waste?
PS
That is about the 10th time you have posted the same information. Do you have any new research to post.
Just the Facts:
In June 2004, the USDA revised their estimate of ethanol's energy ratio from 1.34 up to 1.67—almost entirely because they changed calculation methods. But the method they argued for and used in 2002 was right, and the new one is wrong.
The new study re-estimates energy inputs from seed corn, nitrogen, herbicides, pesticides, transportation, and production. The net result is to lower the energy ratio from 1.09 to 1.06, ignoring ethanol byproducts. But energy byproducts used to add 0.25 and now they add 0.71 to the energy ratio.
Previously, a byproduct that saved 1 unit of energy was given 1 unit of credit. Now a byproduct that uses up 1 unit of energy is given 1 unit of credit--even if it saves no energy at all. That's wrong.
Nice try, and I guess it worked. It convinced the lame brains in Washington that ethanol was worth wasting billions of dollars in corporate welfare.
Still, even as attractive (to me, and maybe ONLY to me) as diesels MAY prove to be, we currently are at 0.26% diesel penetration (light duty, aka cars that Mr. and Ms. America actually drives.) Would not it take more than an act of Congress and perhaps more than a force majeure to make even a single digit dent in our consumption of "gasoline?"
What was the timeline to get to 30% diesel penetration in Europe overall and 70% diesel penetration in the Luxury/Premium/Performance Sedans "over there?"
I have been visiting Europe since 1993 on at least a once yearly basis -- and on some trips I rent cars, starting in either 1999 or 2000 (sorry I can't be more specific) the cars I rented stopped being gasoline and became instead diesel (BTW, the cars I have rented, thus far, have always been German makes -- perhaps because I have usually specified what we in the US call "mid size" cars; i.e., the smallest car Budget, for instance, has ever rented to me was an Audi A4 and the largest was a Mercedes E (body size) class.)
Did something "magic" happen in the past 5 - 7 years that moved the Europeans to adopt diesels so rapidly that overall 1 in 3 are now thus?
Imagine the sea change that would be required to go from 0.26% to 30% diesel penetration in the US -- wow.
I keep reading the stuff and hopefully NOT nonsense that suggests "diesel" is part of the mix that will be "our savior." Wanting it to be so, as my mom used to say, won't exactly make it happen (ditto with ethanol); but, then I hearken back to the "evolution" of diesel in Europe and wonder if there (now -- this month -- with the beginning of clean "petrol-diesel" coming on line) can be any parallels.
The question stands -- what was the time frame to get Europe to 1 in 3?
Or, if this is too much to ask here on this blog -- any URL's that might shed some light?
Thanks. :shades:
Me too! I don't see myself settling for a gas car after owning a diesel car. Gas engines just don't have that lowdown torque that makes highway driving a pleasure. Something you have to experience to understand.
I think we are already seeing a switch in the mindset of diehard ethanol addicts. They are posting information that shows how much more energy you get from biodiesel than ethanol, for each unit of fossil fuel energy used. It is a step forward. It will take time to convince a dense population of the advantages of diesel. They are so into their 0-60 MPH figures. I am more into the 35-75 MPH times. Having to listen to a screaming gas engine over the sounds of Mozart on XM radio is not my idea of pleasure driving. Even some of the hybrid owners complain of high whining gas engines when they are going up hill. That is not necessary if you design an engine properly.
That generalization is quite misleading.
A gas engine part of a hybrid system does indeed have that torque too. Combining that with ethanol increases the horsepower as well.
JOHN
Please stick to the purpose of the forum.
A gas engine part of a hybrid system does indeed have that torque too. Combining that with ethanol increases the horsepower as well.
JOHN
Well put John.
The 0.25% figure is the proportion of current diesel consumption that could be served by biodiesel if you used up all of the current surplus US soybean crop to make it. (This also assumes that you had the equipment to make all of this biodiesel, which also doesn't exist, and the vehicles to use it, which would require conversion.)
So again, if we are talking about alternative fuels (and no, diesel is not an alternative fuel, but a petroleum product), it seems that none of them currently can be produced in sufficient quantities and used in enough vehicles to make a meaningful impact. For both E85 ethanol and biodiesel, we'd need the vehicles to use it, production facilities and a LOT more biomass before it will do much at a national level. And my guess is that the free market alone won't ensure adoption, and may not make the price low enough for the market to embrace it. (We're going to have to paying a lot more for our tofu if biodiesel hits max production.)
The question stands -- what was the time frame to get Europe to 1 in 3?
Not sure how that helps if oil dependency and/or environment are the primary motivators for change. Unless you like diesel for its own sake (and obviously, some people do), is this a goal worth prioritizing?
And I don't think that Europeans had to "get" to a high ratio of diesel, Europeans have had tax policies favoring diesel for many decades. Europe has never had cheap gas, because it has always been a net oil importer, even with North Sea oil. It seems to be more of a diversification strategy (getting more use out of a barrel of oil) than anything else.
As it stands now, diesel already comprises about one-third of aggregate consumption of gas and diesel in the US, but the US diesel supply is going largely to trucks, so I suppose that the US is already reasonably diversified. But this doesn't make it self-sufficient, as we all know.
I think that the fundamental point is that at least in the short- to medium-term, there is no substitute for petroleum, so we will need to reduce consumption. In my mind, the only way to ensure that is to raise prices to such a level that consumers are motivated to use less, and automakers have an incentive to make more efficient cars that consumers will demand because of these high fuel prices.
I see hybrids as having a lot of potential, and you can't judge future hybrid performance by the current generation of vehicles. Just as we didn't assume that the Wright Brothers flight at Kitty Hawk illustrated the full potential of flight, so we can't presume that today's hybrids have hit their peak performance. Perhaps they will be integrated with diesel engines, too, and made to run on the alternative fuels (that we don't have...)
It's too early for a "late adoptor" like me to buy one, but there are other more adventurous consumers who will help to fund the R&D and pave the way to market. During that development process, I expect these cars to become more efficient, more mainstream, better to drive and cheaper to produce, thanks to scale economies as sales improve. That seems more effective than betting on alternative fuels that can't be produced in reasonable quantities, in diesels that consumers won't want or on pure electric cars that have absolutely no chance of success given their significant limitations.
I have been using E10 for 3 years now in two vehicles with no apparent loss of any mileage, probably what the average driver in the USA will find out. As we merge new products into the ethanol plants such as additional cellulose products, the efficiency of production will increase and costs of ethanol production will decrease even more.
Costs to manufacture ethanol are now running about $1,00 a gallon according to the information from the manufacturing plants distribution, market forces on a so-far scarce product and just plain profit-taking have increased that for the time being -- so what. There are always start-up costs to roll out a nationwide program and the pressure to get E10 and E85 in all of the US instantly is a bit non realistic, it takes time to create the infrastructure.
As I have said, the problem should have been solved long ago, but the unique demands of America's fantastically large highway system, the absolute world importance of our breadbasket and our 3,000 mile by 1,500 mile coast to coast infrastructure are tremendously greater than the requirements of a temperamental Socialist Europe or the daunting fragmented landscape of Asia.
Solutions are either here or near, not "pie in the sky" wishes and dreams, but practical solutions being worked on in a positive vein by many Americans on a daily basis. As I travel this country I see a lot of poverty in the farmland, more and more land is unnecessary for production of crops. Our productivity per acre is enormous, but many million of acres are not the best there is and so sit idle: in the northeast, in new england, in the south, etc., but that land is not wasted, good land that just sleeps. Maybe, just maybe it will be awakened to things like Ethanol or Biodiesel renewable fuels. This country has the capacity to grow and produce biofuels in tremendous quantities that can power the world -- our new "growth" industry for the 21st century.
If our FFV or E10 using auto breaks down on the road, we get annoyed, but stand an excellent chance of getting it repaired and getting on with our lives, but it causes me to hesitate when it comes to repairing our Hybrids or Diesel autos -- out in the hinterland. Who will do it, and at what cost?
by Diane Greer
April, 2005
In the Grimm Brother's fairy tale, Rumpelstiltskin spins straw into gold. Thanks to advances in biotechnology, researchers can now transform straw, and other plant wastes, into "green" gold - cellulosic ethanol. While chemically identical to ethanol produced from corn or soybeans, cellulose ethanol exhibits a net energy content three times higher than corn ethanol and emits a low net level of greenhouse gases. Recent technological developments are not only improving yields but also driving down production cost, bringing us nearer to the day when cellulosic ethanol could replace expensive, imported "black gold" with a sustainable, domestically produced biofuel.
Cellulosic ethanol has the potential to substantially reduce our consumption of gasoline. "It is at least as likely as hydrogen to be an energy carrier of choice for a sustainable transportation sector," say the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Union of Concerned Scientists in a joint statement. Major companies and research organizations are also realizing the potential. Shell Oil has predicted "the global market for biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol will grow to exceed $10 billion by 2012." A recent study funded by the Energy Foundation and the National Commission on Energy Policy, entitled "Growing Energy: How Biofuels Can Help End America's Oil Dependence", concluded "biofuels coupled with vehicle efficiency and smart growth could reduce the oil dependency of our transportation sector by two-thirds by 2050 in a sustainable way."
ISN'T ALL ETHANOL THE SAME?
Conventional ethanol and cellulosic ethanol are the same product, but are produced utilizing different feedstocks and processes. Conventional ethanol is derived from grains such as corn and wheat or soybeans. Corn, the predominant feedstock, is converted to ethanol in either a dry or wet milling process. In dry milling operations, liquefied corn starch is produced by heating corn meal with water and enzymes. A second enzyme converts the liquefied starch to sugars, which are fermented by yeast into ethanol and carbon dioxide. Wet milling operations separate the fiber, germ (oil), and protein from the starch before it is fermented into ethanol.
Cellulosic ethanol can be produced from a wide variety of cellulosic biomass feedstocks including agricultural plant wastes (corn stover, cereal straws, sugarcane bagasse), plant wastes from industrial processes (sawdust, paper pulp) and energy crops grown specifically for fuel production, such as switchgrass. Cellulosic biomass is composed of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin, with smaller amounts of proteins, lipids (fats, waxes and oils) and ash. Roughly, two-thirds of the dry mass of cellulosic materials are present as cellulose and hemicellulose. Lignin makes up the bulk of the remaining dry mass.
As with grains, processing cellulosic biomass aims to extract fermentable sugars from the feedstock. But the sugars in cellulose and hemicellulose are locked in complex carbohydrates called polysaccharides (long chains of monosaccharides or simple sugars). Separating these complex polymeric structures into fermentable sugars is essential to the efficient and economic production of cellulosic ethanol.
Two processing options are employed to produce fermentable sugars from cellulosic biomass. One approach utilizes acid hydrolysis to break down the complex carbohydrates into simple sugars. An alternative method, enzymatic hydrolysis, utilizes pretreatment processes to first reduce the size of the material to make it more accessible to hydrolysis. Once pretreated, enzymes are employed to convert the cellulosic biomass to fermentable sugars. The final step involves microbial fermentation yielding ethanol and carbon dioxide.
Grain based ethanol utilizes fossil fuels to produce heat during the conversion process, generating substantial greenhouse gas emissions. Cellulosic ethanol production substitutes biomass for fossil fuels, changing the emissions calculations, according to Michael Wang of Argonne National Laboratories. Wang has created a "Well to Wheel" (WTW) life cycle analysis model to calculate greenhouse gas emissions produced by fuels in internal combustion engines. Life cycle analyses look at the environmental impact of a product from its inception to the end of its useful life.
"The WTW model for cellulosic ethanol showed greenhouse gas emission reductions of about 80% [over gasoline]," said Wang. "Corn ethanol showed 20 to 30% reductions." Cellulosic ethanol's favorable profile stems from using lignin, a biomass by-product of the conversion operation, to fuel the process. "Lignin is a renewable fuel with no net greenhouse gas emissions," explains Wang. "Greenhouse gases produced by the combustion of biomass are offset by the CO2 absorbed by the biomass as it grows."
Feedstock sources and supplies are another important factor differentiating the two types of ethanol. Agricultural wastes are a largely untapped resource. This low cost feedstock is more abundant and contains greater potential energy than simple starches and sugars. Currently, agricultural residues are plowed back into the soil, composted, burned or disposed in landfills. As an added benefit, collection and sale of crop residues offer farmers a new source of income from existing acreage.
Industrial wastes and municipal solid waste (MSW) can also be used to produce ethanol. Lee Lynd, an engineering professor at Dartmouth, has been working with the Gorham Paper Mill to convert paper sludge to ethanol. "Paper sludge is a waste material that goes into landfills at a cost of $80/dry ton," says Lynd. "This is genuinely a negative cost feedstock. And it is already pretreated, eliminating a step in the conversion process."
Masada Oxynol is planning a facility in Middletown, New York, to process MSW into ethanol. After recovering recyclables, acid hydrolysis will be employed to convert the cellulosic materials into sugars. "The facility will provide both economic and environmental value," explains David Webster, Executive Vice President of Masada. From an environmental standpoint, the process reduces or eliminates the landfilling of wastes. By-products of the process include gypsum, lignin and fly ash. "Under normal operations, enough lignin will be recovered to make the plant self-sufficient in energy," notes Webster.
Perennial grasses, such as switchgrass, and other forage crops are promising feedstocks for ethanol production. "Environmentally switchgrass has some large benefits and the potential for productivity increases," says John Sheehan of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The perennial grass has a deep root system, anchoring soils to prevent erosion and helping to build soil fertility. "As a native species, switchgrass is better adapted to our climate and soils," adds Nathanael Criers, NRDC Senior Policy Analyst. "It uses