Ethanol

[mhaze]

Now for my 2 Cents.......It actually takes aprox. 15% more energy to create gasoline than you get out of it. However, when creating ethanol there is aprox. 35% increase in production over consumption. I will continue to look for the article I know I have it somewhere in my files.

False.

But do keep looking and post when you find them.

Run crude through a distillation stack , add heat and pressure, out comes the fractions, including gas. A very efficient process.

 

[GreyICE]

False.

True.

 

[Dymanic]

I also talked to a man in South Carolina that works for a company that creates Corn Hybrids and they are about to release a new hybrid that contains the enzymes to break its self down under heat and pressure.

That's wonderful news. (And welcome to the forum). Yes, that's just the sort of thing that's needed in order to produce ethanol from the materials you listed in a manner that makes it an economically viable activity rather than simply a demonstration of scientific principles. The problem is that the enzymes currently available for this purpose are too expensive (when calculated as a percentage cost of the finished product). We're all waiting for the breakthrough(s) that will change this situation. But my next door neighbor's sister's ex-roomate says we're not there yet. One thing that would help to make a believer out of me would be an observable shift away from the gas-hogging monstrosities I see clogging the roadways and toward small, ethanol-powered vehicles.

have any of you sat down and looked at how much energy it takes to create gasoline. I Bet not.

How much were you betting again? It takes energy to produce anything. Why should gasoline be any different? (And why would you assume that anyone would assume that it was?) In California (where I live), converting crude oil to gasoline is the single greatest industrial use of electricity.

I say lets produce our own fuel and keep the money here so our people can strive once again.

I think there is likely to be plenty of striving no matter what happens. I'm among the pessimists who believe that if we are to continue to thrive, it's going to be mostly a matter of redefining what it means to "thrive", because we're not going to maintain our present lifestyles on real-time solar no matter what the collection medium is. Not even close.

 

[robinson]

I think that's pretty much inevitable. The economics of ethanol production are deeply intertwined with the economics of oil production -- especially the way it's being done in the US, where the amount of petroleum used in the process represents roughly the same amount of energy as that contained in the end product (depending on how thorough one is in including all of the fuel costs involved).

I don't believe it is inevitable at all. Don't make me invoke the power of the Mods, cause I will do it.

As I said, looking at non political, practical information, the kind business people read, because they actually need real information to figure out if something is worth doing, there is money to be made in ethanol.

The myth/propaganda that it takes MORE petrol to create the same amount of energy from ethanol is pure crap. Clever crap, because some people just buy it, throw their hands up and declare ethanol is a waste of energy.

If you only look at the worst case scenario, somebody buying corn from a petrol intensive farm, shipping it, drying it, all using gas/diesel, then using petrol to ferment it, then ship it again, it probably does work out that way.

No surprise there. But claiming all ethanol is that petrol expensive is dumb, it is propaganda, it is nonsense of course.

It might be comforting to those who don't want any alternative fuels, to close the book and say ethanol is a waste of energy.

But in the real world, people who are making money off of ethanol don't give a damn. They even focus their attention on improving efficiency, finding new ways to utilize both waste products of production, as well as reducing costs.

While it might make an oil Baron cringe, the idea of farmers, or corporations, running farms off of fuels grown on site, and making a profit doing it, makes some of us smile. Using old fashioned methods of rotating crops, rather than spending 40% of your profits on petrol based fertilizers, has got to bother the fertilizer vendors, as well as the source of the oil.

The very concept that you can be independent of an Oil company, which also means independence from the taxes involved, is the sort of thing that challenges the status quo. Add in some wind turbines on the same land you are growing soy, potatoes and switch grass for fuel, put some cheap Nanosolar cells up for harvesting sunshine, burn biodiesel and ethanol in vehicles, and you get this vision of not only freedom from some oil well in Saudi Arabia, but also bigger profits than you could reap from growing just food on the same land.

Use the methane from animal waste for heat, and this whole alternative thing starts to look like a practical way to make money, grow food, and fuel, and not worry about an oil crisis.

Ethanol represents a real way to store and transport solar energy. Combined with biodiesel, from the same crops, we are looking at a simple, practical way to convert sunshine into a portable fuel source.

Cynics will cry out, there isn't enough land! It won't supply but a small part of the energy needs! It's a waste of time! It costs more!

Fortunately, cynics aren't allowed to actually do anything to stop pragmatic people from doing stuff. And if you are the person buying biodiesel and ethanol from the farmer down the road, or delivering your crop to him for conversion, you probably don't care what a cynic has to say about anything.

As oil prices rise, every acre becomes more profitable. If oil distribution is disrupted for some reason, (war, terrorism, hurricanes, refinery fires, shortages, rationing, whatever) , ethanol becomes incredibly valuable.

Local production, (even in your backyard) makes the cost of ethanol stable, not subject to either market forces or distribution problems, which has a certain value that doesn't have a price, in times of crisis.

That the Government idiots don't want anyone to make their own ethanol, (cause you can drink it), is a very old problem of course. Making ethanol is one of the oldest of human skills. We know how to do it, in almost any situation, out of almost any source of sugar or starch. Due to the other use for ethanol.

Imagine what the public mindset would be like if they thought they could make their own fuel for their cars. Now imagine they figure out it can be done a lot cheaper than buying gasoline.

Oh my. Oh my my.

Unlike a lot of things, how much energy it takes to make some moonshine, how long it takes, what it can be made out of, and how much energy there is in a gallon of it, all those things are no mystery at all.

Any idiot with a primitive still, some sugar and firewood can make ethanol.

It is about as far from a mystery as it gets. Anyone who tries to make it seem complicated, or expensive, has some other issue, some other problem with the concept.

And yeah, Fords ran just fine on ethanol. Some of them still do.

The new ones run even better on it.

Go figure.

 

[Horatius]

The myth/propaganda that it takes MORE petrol to create the same amount of energy from ethanol is pure crap. Clever crap, because some people just buy it, throw their hands up and declare ethanol is a waste of energy.

If it is crap, it should be possible to show that. Why don't those who are promoting ethanol as an alternative do that? So far, all I've seen is a lot of dismissive handwaving (most of it here by someone who looks to profit off of ethanol, so I'm suspicious of their objectivity).

But in the real world, people who are making money off of ethanol don't give a damn. They even focus their attention on improving efficiency, finding new ways to utilize both waste products of production, as well as reducing costs.

Yes, but how much of that profitability is due to Government subsidies, and how much is due to the inherent value of ethanol? If it can make money, why does it need so much propping up by the Government?

There are lots of businesses that are profitable in some tax climates, but which aren't in others. Again, those who wish to promote ethanol as a long-term, large-scale alternative to oil must show that such a scheme is economically viable.

Cynics will cry out, there isn't enough land! It won't supply but a small part of the energy needs! It's a waste of time! It costs more!

...
Making ethanol is one of the oldest of human skills. We know how to do it, in almost any situation, out of almost any source of sugar or starch. Due to the other use for ethanol.

Imagine what the public mindset would be like if they thought they could make their own fuel for their cars. Now imagine they figure out it can be done a lot cheaper than buying gasoline.

...

Unlike a lot of things, how much energy it takes to make some moonshine, how long it takes, what it can be made out of, and how much energy there is in a gallon of it, all those things are no mystery at all.

Any idiot with a primitive still, some sugar and firewood can make ethanol.

And cynics will also point out that there's a large difference between running a little still to produce a few bottles of hooch for a party, and running an operation intended to produce enough fuel to run even one car on a regular basis, let alone all (or even a large fraction of) the vehicles in North America. How many of us could brew up, say, 40L a week of ethanol? How many of us would be inclined to do that? How do those numbers compare to those of us who buy that much gas every week?

And I'll point out that the energy balance of ethanol is irrelevant to those making moonshine, as the energy content of the booze isn't their desired end result. I'm willing to invest energy in making booze because I want to get drunk. If I'm looking for a fuel, I want to be damn sure I'm not getting myself into a downward spiral of inefficiencies.

And yeah, Fords ran just fine on ethanol. Some of them still do.

The new ones run even better on it.

Go figure.

No one is disputing that cars can run on ethanol. It's just a question of if they should.

And I'm sorry, but hippie-dippy, "Free yourself from the machine, Man!" rhetoric isn't going to answer this question. Show me the numbers!

 

[casebro]

Even moonshining is only profitable due to the avoidance of the $10/gallon liquor tax on ethanol.

Hmm, how many wood-fired stills can our air quality stand?

But, the hybrid corn mentioned above might be a boon to us home beer brewers. And the Mega-Swill brewers may be able to cut down on the rice in their suds-water.

 

[GreyICE]

If it is crap, it should be possible to show that. Why don't those who are promoting ethanol as an alternative do that? So far, all I've seen is a lot of dismissive handwaving (most of it here by someone who looks to profit off of ethanol, so I'm suspicious of their objectivity).






Yes, but how much of that profitability is due to Government subsidies, and how much is due to the inherent value of ethanol? If it can make money, why does it need so much propping up by the Government?

There are lots of businesses that are profitable in some tax climates, but which aren't in others. Again, those who wish to promote ethanol as a long-term, large-scale alternative to oil must show that such a scheme is economically viable.

Numbers? Here be the numbers:

http://www.eners.ch/plateforme/medias/macedo_2004.pdf (PDF Link)

The total energy
consumptions for Scenario 1, 60,008 kcal/TC, and
Scenario 2, 55,371 kcal/TC, compare very favorably
with the total energy production (ethanol and surplus
bagasse) of 499,400 kcal/TC and 565,700 kcal/TC,
for Scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. The ratios of
output energy (renewable) to input energy (fossil)
are 8.3 and 10.2, for Scenarios 1 and 2, respectively.

Corn Ethanol:
http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm

We show that corn ethanol is energy efficient as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.24.

 

[Horatius]

Numbers? Here be the numbers:

Corn Ethanol:
http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm

We show that corn ethanol is energy efficient as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.24.

Yeah, but they had to fudge a bit to get that ratio.


They included "Energy Credits for Coproducts", which essentially assigns some of the input energy to by-products of the ethanol production, which are themselves economically useful. That may make sense from a bookkeeping perspective, but when you consider the whole point of this is to replace existing oil use, the fact that some energy is tied up in other products that you can't put in your gas tank is actually a negative factor. Without this, their energy return is anywhere from 0.99-1.01, which isn't going to save the Earth. And that's assuming all their other factors are correct.

They do make a good point that some of this energy comes from coal and natural gas, which allows us to convert those sources into a form that can be used in cars, but then we get into the question of ethanol vs. electric cars (fuel cells or batteries), and which system would make better use of these energy sources.


And again, this seems to come from a group that is benefiting from the current push to use ethanol. Would we so readily accept things from the oil industry that supported their position?

 

[GreyICE]

Yeah, but they had to fudge a bit to get that ratio.


They included "Energy Credits for Coproducts", which essentially assigns some of the input energy to by-products of the ethanol production, which are themselves economically useful. That may make sense from a bookkeeping perspective, but when you consider the whole point of this is to replace existing oil use, the fact that some energy is tied up in other products that you can't put in your gas tank is actually a negative factor. Without this, their energy return is anywhere from 0.99-1.01, which isn't going to save the Earth. And that's assuming all their other factors are correct.

That flies just fine. By the way, it's 0.99-1.08, which could save the earth, even if you refuse to consider coproducts. Since the entire reason to use wet milling is tied up in coproducts, you have to use the Dry Milling number if we wish to neglect them. If the production is merely self-sustaining, that's still an 8% gain. Oh, and that 8% number is growing. That was '95. Care to guess where it's at now?

And again, this seems to come from a group that is benefiting from the current push to use ethanol. Would we so readily accept things from the oil industry that supported their position?

Here's one from the USDA. It finds a net energy balance of 1.34.

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf

Of course a nine year difference in time span might account for this. And it's all positive, wet and dry. Techniques improving?

 

[Dymanic]

I don't believe it is inevitable at all. Don't make me invoke the power of the Mods, cause I will do it.

Before troubling the mods, let's see if we can trace this "derail" to it's source. Ah. I think I've found it:

"Now I hear it takes more oil to make ethanol, than if you just used the oil for fuel."

It's not a thread about ethanol. It's a thread about the viability of ethanol as an alternative to petroleum-based fuels, and whether the question is approached from an energy standpoint or an economic standpoint, I don't see how it's even possible to discuss it without talking about oil.

If you only look at the worst case scenario, somebody buying corn from a petrol intensive farm, shipping it, drying it, all using gas/diesel, then using petrol to ferment it, then ship it again, it probably does work out that way.

No surprise there. But claiming all ethanol is that petrol expensive is dumb, it is propaganda, it is nonsense of course.

Who is claiming that? In my first post to the thread, the first thing I said was: "It depends on the feedstock.", which is really another way of expressing the same thing ( i.e., that it is not correct to say that all ethanol has a poor energy balance). Show me who IS saying that, and I'll try to help you straighten them out.

While it might make an oil Baron cringe, the idea of farmers, or corporations, running farms off of fuels grown on site, and making a profit doing it, makes some of us smile. Using old fashioned methods of rotating crops, rather than spending 40% of your profits on petrol based fertilizers, has got to bother the fertilizer vendors, as well as the source of the oil.

I find myself forced to conclude that the person who typed these words is completely oblivious to the fact that the corn ethanol industry has been the beneficiary of many billions of dollars in government subsidies.

 

[Horatius]

That flies just fine. By the way, it's 0.99-1.08, which could save the earth,

You're right, it is 1.08, I was looking at the wrong column.

even if you refuse to consider coproducts. Since the entire reason to use wet milling is tied up in coproducts, you have to use the Dry Milling number if we wish to neglect them. If the production is merely self-sustaining, that's still an 8% gain. Oh, and that 8% number is growing. That was '95. Care to guess where it's at now?
Here's one from the USDA. It finds a net energy balance of 1.34.

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf

Of course a nine year difference in time span might account for this. And it's all positive, wet and dry. Techniques improving?

But that study, while it was published in 2002, seems to be based on numbers from 1996. Why aren't more recent numbers available? If we did have a system that could produce a 1.04-1.11 ratio in 1996, even without the fudge factor, why can't someone show a demonstration system that is entirely self-sustaining, running only on ethanol? We'd expect that from a free energy guy, why not ethanol promoters? If they've had more than break-even production for more than 10 years now, what's holding them back?

And if the ethanol systems have really improved that much in the last ten years or so, it shouldn't be that difficult to show a clear benefit.

All these studies (pro and con) seem to be based on "estimates". Where are the studies of actual production examples? When fiddling with a few numbers in your estimates can throw you back and forth over the break-even line, we really need a solid physical example to determine what the reality is.

It's also interesting to note that two of the authors are the same in these two studies. Is there any replication of their work from other sources? If we're going to propose a radical overhaul of North American infrastructure, we really should get some outside confirmation.

 

[GreyICE]

But that study, while it was published in 2002, seems to be based on numbers from 1996. Why aren't more recent numbers available? If we did have a system that could produce a 1.04-1.11 ratio in 1996, even without the fudge factor, why can't someone show a demonstration system that is entirely self-sustaining, running only on ethanol? We'd expect that from a free energy guy, why not ethanol promoters? If they've had more than break-even production for more than 10 years now, what's holding them back?

Ethanol and human labor. It's the cost of the second component that drives the cost-effectiveness of the system as a whole.

Oh and various numbers are proprietary. People like giving up their particular numbers almost as much as they like tearing out their own kidneys by hand. If you're high, people will be looking to steal your methods. If you're low, your competition is going to take you out. Even more fun, by being the first one to give it up, you get to live on the ass bottom of an information hole, where not only do you know exactly where you are, you don't know how you'll get screwed.

And if the ethanol systems have really improved that much in the last ten years or so, it shouldn't be that difficult to show a clear benefit.

All these studies (pro and con) seem to be based on "estimates". Where are the studies of actual production examples? When fiddling with a few numbers in your estimates can throw you back and forth over the break-even line, we really need a solid physical example to determine what the reality is.

See above.

It's also interesting to note that two of the authors are the same in these two studies. Is there any replication of their work from other sources? If we're going to propose a radical overhaul of North American infrastructure, we really should get some outside confirmation.

More?
http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/patzek/BiofuelQA/Materials/03_28_05ArgonneNatlLabEthanolStudy.pdf

Note page two. That's what you'll see when we're talking about the so-called skeptics, btw.

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/267.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/30/11206
http://rael.berkeley.edu/ebamm/FarrellEthanolScience012706.pdf

I am not intending to link spam, but I am trying to show that while the exact number has not reached a consensus (nor will it for the foreseeable future, most likely), the fact that the number is positive has. If that doesn't convince you, major corporations pouring billions of dollars into it should. Do you truly suppose that they would pour billions of dollars down a hole in an attempt to defraud the government and the American taxpayers? Or is it more likely that they're investing in something they know is working, and hope to get working better?

 

[Hindmost]

Corn based ethanol has always been a non-starter and will always be one unless a lot of people stop driving.

If we took the entire crop of corn in the US and converted it to ethanol, it wouldn't make a real dent in the 145 billion gallons of gas used. Production now is about 5-6 billion gallons of ethanol a year. Another problem with ethanol is that is must be transported by trucks to prevent water mixing in. This would add to the 60 billion gallons of diesel fuel the US consumes.

A bit of thermo...all energy production is truly net energy negative...it has to be. Any biofuel is taking advantage of the "free" sun and chemical energy from the soil to yield a net energy "gain." Right now, we exploit millions of years of "free" solar, chemical and geothermal energy in the oil, coal and natural gas we all use. Take away the "free" part and thermo will yield a net negative result. (For hydrogen: more energy is needed to produce the hydrogen than is returned when it is burned--which is why development in underway to produce hydrogen in the next generation of nuclear plants.) As has been pointed out, without the energy credits from feedstock...corn based ethanol would provide no energy "gain."

Brasil does get a high yield from sugar cane based ethanol because it is easy to convert the sugar to alcohol and sugar cane grows well in that climate. However, it is not sustainable indefinitely. It is exhausting the soil and will lose over the long run. There is a 370% yield.

Switchgrass could provide a useful amount of fuel as it has a theoretical yield of about 400% IIRC; but there isn't a commercially available enzyme to break down the cellulose into sugars. And the answer may be years away.

The US uses about 80 quads of fossil fuels each year. Biofuels will have a difficult time replacing all that energy on a yearly basis since you only get a year to grow replacement energy.

Many studies show ethanol as no better on the carbon release scale than gasoline--so there isn't a carbon benefit either.

I also think it is a really bad idea to burn natural gas to produce ethanol and that is the fuel of choice. It is too valuable a resource for that.

glenn

source on ethanol: Scientific American Jan 07


Note: Ethanol has only about 2/3 of the energy content of gas on a gallon per gallon basis.

 

[Horatius]

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/267.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/30/11206
http://rael.berkeley.edu/ebamm/FarrellEthanolScience012706.pdf

I am not intending to link spam, but I am trying to show that while the exact number has not reached a consensus (nor will it for the foreseeable future, most likely), the fact that the number is positive has. If that doesn't convince you, major corporations pouring billions of dollars into it should. Do you truly suppose that they would pour billions of dollars down a hole in an attempt to defraud the government and the American taxpayers? Or is it more likely that they're investing in something they know is working, and hope to get working better?

But it's still not clear that these numbers can be applied to production on a scale that could replace a significant percentage of gasoline, which is what the "E85" promoters would have us do. In fact, your first link explicitly refers to the goal of replacing most gas with ethanol as a "strawman", and concludes:

Admittedly, our studies are quite limited in the sense that they focus on energy and greenhouse gas emissions impacts of corn ethanol production. We have not explicitly addressed issues of cost effectiveness, water pollution, soil erosion, and ethical and moral issues associated with use of cropland for fuel production, while Prof. Pimentel does tackle them. However, we do implicitly acknowledge that such limits to the use of corn ethanol do exist, by refusing in our analysis to examine cases of excessively rapid expansion of corn ethanol output. The cases that we did examine were tied closely to our estimates of rates of productivity increase, such that little expansion of use of cropland was required to meet our projected expansions of ethanol production.

The majority of their net positive gain still comes from the "coproducts credit", which makes sense in small quantities, but again, they explicitly reject it's application to large-scale adoption of ethanol:

We note that Prof. Pimentel fallaciously sets up a “strawman” – an assumption that those analyzing corn ethanol intend for it to entirely replace gasoline fuel. By doing so, he creates a hypothetical arbitrary situation where the quantities of co-products produced are so large as that the market obviously would not be able to absorb the quantities and therefore that co-products become onerous waste products. The situation that our study team analyzed carefully considered the reasonableness of the size of the market that could be served by ethanol production while retaining a market for co-products and avoiding excessive displacement of valuable cropland. In particular, we assumed a scenario of increasing corn ethanol production from the current level of 1.5 billion gallons a year to a level of 3 billion gallons a year by 2010. For this situation, which is the only reasonable one to consider, a co-product credit is appropriate.

And as for this amount of ethanol, well, from that last link:

The 3.4 billion
gallons of ethanol blended into gasoline in
2004

...we're already above the level they predicted, almost 2 years ahead of their schedule.


Both of the other papers still use this coproducts accounting to get the great numbers they use, and at least one of them seems to indicate that biodiesel is much better than ethanol in most respects.

Ethanol might have a part in reducing oil usage, but the wholesale replacement of oil that so many people seem to be pushing still seems to be a pipe dream.

As for the corporations, it wouldn't be the first time that people got overextended in a market because of artificial market conditions created by government policy. Ask me about the Ottawa taxi cab situation, sometime.

 

[GreyICE]

But it's still not clear that these numbers can be applied to production on a scale that could replace a significant percentage of gasoline, which is what the "E85" promoters would have us do. In fact, your first link explicitly refers to the goal of replacing most gas with ethanol as a "strawman", and concludes:

Yes, they refered to the strategy of explicitly supplanting gasoline with ethanol as a strawman argument because its easy to set up and then knock down, and its obvious that gradual replacement over a long period of time as well as a varied strategy of producing ethanol from various sources is superior to a single source instantaneous replacement method.

You then proceed to set the strawman up and knock it down. AFTER it's been pointed out no less.

The majority of their net positive gain still comes from the "coproducts credit", which makes sense in small quantities, but again, they explicitly reject it's application to large-scale adoption of ethanol:

Once again, you mistake reasoned analysis considering logical hypotheticals for rejection of Ethanol.

And as for this amount of ethanol, well, from that last link:



...we're already above the level they predicted, almost 2 years ahead of their schedule.

Okay, now we're straying dangerously close to woo territory. Ethanol is non-viable because it is exceeding the proponent's expectations? What exactly are we questioning here? Or is this the fling monkey poo and see what sticks approach?

Both of the other papers still use this coproducts accounting to get the great numbers they use, and at least one of them seems to indicate that biodiesel is much better than ethanol in most respects.

I still don't see what's so horrible about the coproducts approach.

Ethanol might have a part in reducing oil usage, but the wholesale replacement of oil that so many people seem to be pushing still seems to be a pipe dream.

Wholesale replacement with corn-based ethanol is probably a pipe-dream. Ethanol is not an exclusive product of Corn. I noticed how you danced around Brazil's immense success with doing exactly that.

As for the corporations, it wouldn't be the first time that people got overextended in a market because of artificial market conditions created by government policy. Ask me about the Ottawa taxi cab situation, sometime.

Major corporations don't sink billions of dollars into a research hole without significant cost-benefit analysis.

 

[Horatius]

You then proceed to set the strawman up and knock it down. AFTER it's been pointed out no less.



Once again, you mistake reasoned analysis considering logical hypotheticals for rejection of Ethanol.

The problem is, ethanol is being marketed as promoting "Energy independence" for the US, and by there own admission, that's an unlikely outcome. 10% replacement of gas isn't going to make the US independent of anyone.

If they're really pushing for true energy independence, at some point they will have to address this issue, but right now, everyone who is promoting ethanol is simply handwaving this issue away.

Okay, now we're straying dangerously close to woo territory. Ethanol is non-viable because it is exceeding the proponent's expectations? What exactly are we questioning here? Or is this the fling monkey poo and see what sticks approach?

No, I'm showing that their assumption that ethanol won't be used as a major replacement for oil is already showing evidence of being incorrect. It's early days yet, but if their assumptions are flawed, so are their results, and it would be a good idea to address this before we go farther down this road.

I still don't see what's so horrible about the coproducts approach.
Wholesale replacement with corn-based ethanol is probably a pipe-dream. Ethanol is not an exclusive product of Corn. I noticed how you danced around Brazil's immense success with doing exactly that.
Major corporations don't sink billions of dollars into a research hole without significant cost-benefit analysis.

What's so horrible is that it generates a greater positive energy balance, but that balance is on paper only. The end result of the ethanol has less energy available than what they are claiming it does. The only way the "co-products" can balance that out is by displacing the fuel used to produce competing products, and at the scales needed to produce any serious "energy independence", it's not clear that the co-products will out-compete those other products.

This is a huge fudge factor, that they completely dismiss as a "strawman", while all the time, promoting themselves using rhetoric that assumes the strawman as their ultimate goal. If they're willing to handwave this factor, what else have they fudged?

And we're not talking about Brazil. That's another discussion, and their system is a non-starter for North America. I'm willing to look at other sources for ethanol, but corn-based ethanol has a huge level of backing by government, and once entrenched, it's notoriously difficult to eliminate that backing, even if better systems are available, and even if the current system starts to have a negative impact on progress.

What I'm really saying is, if corn-based ethanol is at best a marginal energy-positive system, that relies heavily on subsidies to be economically viable, and which ultimately cannot do much to reduce dependence on foreign energy sources, perhaps we should be spending our efforts on systems that don't have these problems, or at least, don't have as many of them.

 

[GreyICE]

The problem is, ethanol is being marketed as promoting "Energy independence" for the US, and by there own admission, that's an unlikely outcome. 10% replacement of gas isn't going to make the US independent of anyone.

If they're really pushing for true energy independence, at some point they will have to address this issue, but right now, everyone who is promoting ethanol is simply handwaving this issue away.

No, I'm showing that their assumption that ethanol won't be used as a major replacement for oil is already showing evidence of being incorrect. It's early days yet, but if their assumptions are flawed, so are their results, and it would be a good idea to address this before we go farther down this road.

We're not handwaving the issue away. Everyone who I know promoting Ethanol is promoting more fuel-efficient vehicles, Solar Power, other alternative forms of fuel (other than corn-based ethanol), and a variety of sources.

You choose not to read those proposals. Don't blame us for that.

What's so horrible is that it generates a greater positive energy balance, but that balance is on paper only. The end result of the ethanol has less energy available than what they are claiming it does. The only way the "co-products" can balance that out is by displacing the fuel used to produce competing products, and at the scales needed to produce any serious "energy independence", it's not clear that the co-products will out-compete those other products.

This is a huge fudge factor, that they completely dismiss as a "strawman", while all the time, promoting themselves using rhetoric that assumes the strawman as their ultimate goal. If they're willing to handwave this factor, what else have they fudged?

There was a lot of words here, and they didn't make any sense. Companies are currently choosing the less efficient manner of production (wet-milling) over the more efficient method mainly because of those co-products. If you're hypothesizing an incentive change, we get to play with the best numbers. If you're not, we get to use co-products. You're trying to pick a worse case scenario that can't occur.

And we're not talking about Brazil. That's another discussion, and their system is a non-starter for North America. I'm willing to look at other sources for ethanol, but corn-based ethanol has a huge level of backing by government, and once entrenched, it's notoriously difficult to eliminate that backing, even if better systems are available, and even if the current system starts to have a negative impact on progress.

No it's not. Corn-based Ethanol is the same as every other type of ethanol once its sitting in your gas tank. Make the transition to flex fuel, and the best will win out, because there's no 'lock in' potential to corn based, like you're hypothesizing. Will the homeopathic effects of having once come from switchgrass or hemp or trees (to cite some possible alternative sources) instead of corn cause the engine to seize up? Maybe the molecular memory needs to be of a corn stalk instead of grass?

The only lock in potential is the production facilities. And as many people have pointed out to you, that's just a still. A big, complicated still.

No, corn-based is a fine jumping off point for other technologies, or a fine technology in its own right.

What I'm really saying is, if corn-based ethanol is at best a marginal energy-positive system, that relies heavily on subsidies to be economically viable, and which ultimately cannot do much to reduce dependence on foreign energy sources, perhaps we should be spending our efforts on systems that don't have these problems, or at least, don't have as many of them.

Such as?

 

[Horatius]

Such as?

Well, let's see:

We're not handwaving the issue away. Everyone who I know promoting Ethanol is promoting more fuel-efficient vehicles, Solar Power, other alternative forms of fuel (other than corn-based ethanol), and a variety of sources.

You choose not to read those proposals. Don't blame us for that.

Who says I haven't read the other proposals? In fact, it's these other proposals I'd prefer to fund. Every dollar wasted on a corn based boondoggle is a dollar we can't waste on some other boondoggle.



And while we're discussing strawman arguments:

Will the homeopathic effects of having once come from switchgrass or hemp or trees (to cite some possible alternative sources) instead of corn cause the engine to seize up? Maybe the molecular memory needs to be of a corn stalk instead of grass?

The only lock in potential is the production facilities. And as many people have pointed out to you, that's just a still. A big, complicated still.

And I'll point out that it probably just a little more complicated than a "big, complicated still", as the system process improvements you've been touting are a major part of the cited improvements in the energy output. Are you so confident that a milling process optimized for corn will translate easily to other sources?

And if these other sources are the ultimate goal, why not just promote them now? Why waste billions of dollars and years of effort promoting an ethanol source that even the proponents admit cannot produce the amounts of ethanol we'd need to seriously reduce imports of oil? Why build up an infrastructure around corn that you know you will have to phase out, and which we all know will resist being phased out when those involved see the cash cow coming to an end?

Why are you so adamant about protecting a system that you know can't solve the real problem?

 

[GreyICE]

Who says I haven't read the other proposals? In fact, it's these other proposals I'd prefer to fund. Every dollar wasted on a corn based boondoggle is a dollar we can't waste on some other boondoggle.

So your alternative is nuclear powered cars? Yeah, I give you infinite credibility for that idea.

Lets stick with something that is currently working, instead of your nuclear powered cars.

And while we're discussing strawman arguments:

So how do we lock into corn? You still haven't explained it, you've just handwaved it with a smiley. Corn-based ethanol is no different than any other biological ethanol.

And I'll point out that it probably just a little more complicated than a "big, complicated still", as the system process improvements you've been touting are a major part of the cited improvements in the energy output. Are you so confident that a milling process optimized for corn will translate easily to other sources?

Will the types of optimizations we use for corn give us information about potential optimizations for other ethanol sources? Yes, probably. Can't see why they wouldn't.

And if its less efficient than corn, we won't use it. If it's more, we will use it, and gradually supplant corn (though I doubt completely supplant it, those coproducts you disdain are rather useful).

And if these other sources are the ultimate goal, why not just promote them now? Why waste billions of dollars and years of effort promoting an ethanol source that even the proponents admit cannot produce the amounts of ethanol we'd need to seriously reduce imports of oil? Why build up an infrastructure around corn that you know you will have to phase out, and which we all know will resist being phased out when those involved see the cash cow coming to an end?

Wow. It took one post for you to circle back to the same strawman.

Corn-based ethanol is no different than any other type of ethanol. It can coexist quite happily along side any other ethanol production method you care to name. The infrastructure won't have to be phased out, because its setup to handle ethanol. These coproducts you disdain means corn-based ethanol will continue to be viable pretty much no matter what, unless the new sources are such miracle workers that they completely outperform ethanol by leaps and bounds (at which point the infrastructure still works, because its built for ethanol).

My point, which you dismissed with a smiley, is that there's nothing special about the corn-based ethanol. You keep thinking it has these mysterious properties that lock us into it. That make our infrastructure collapse and need total rebuilding because its now carrying ethanol from a different source.

The only thing I can label that mysterious property is homeopathic, since it sure as hell ain't in the chemical structure. Continue to act like these homeopathic properties are real, and I'll continue to point out they're homeopathy.

Why are you so adamant about protecting a system that you know can't solve the real problem?

Strawman alert!

 

[Horatius]

So your alternative is nuclear powered cars? Yeah, I give you infinite credibility for that idea.

Lets stick with something that is currently working, instead of your nuclear powered cars.

Well, excuse me for trying to lighten the tone a bit. I'll stick to "humourless prig" mode form now on.

So how do we lock into corn? You still haven't explained it, you've just handwaved it with a smiley. Corn-based ethanol is no different than any other biological ethanol.


Will the types of optimizations we use for corn give us information about potential optimizations for other ethanol sources? Yes, probably. Can't see why they wouldn't.

I explained it in the bit you pretty much chose to ignore, in favour of creating yet another strawman argument.

The issue isn't the infrastructure of ethanol use or distribution, it's in the production.

You just assume that the milling processes for corn will work for other materials. That hasn't been clearly demonstrated. Then you say, "Oh, if they don't work as well, we just won't use them!", which means we're still stuck with corn.

And if its less efficient than corn, we won't use it. If it's more, we will use it, and gradually supplant corn (though I doubt completely supplant it, those coproducts you disdain are rather useful).

But are they inherently more useful than the existing products that they will supplant? The whole coproducts credit analysis is based on the assumption that the corn coproducts will replace other similar products, so the simple fact that there are coproducts cannot by itself make corn ethanol more acceptable.

Wow. It took one post for you to circle back to the same strawman.

Corn-based ethanol is no different than any other type of ethanol.

I never said it was. Why, if your position is so obviously correct, do you have to resort to strawman arguments to discuss the issue? I'm trying to have a serious discussion of how best to utilize our limited resources to improve our energy situation, and you're flying off with silly homoeopathic ethanol nonsense, while ignoring (or not understanding) my actual point.

Good job!

Strawman alert!

Just so.