Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Ethanol
- Thread starter anthrax
- Start date
John C Calhoun
New member
anthrax said:
Brings an enormous benefit to the makers of ethanol - primarily corn growers in the midwest that receive huge government subsidies. Other than that, no there are no benefits since it requires more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol from corn than that gallon of ethanol delivers in energy output.
mrplunkey
New member
1) Ethanol as an additive makes existing gasoline burn cleaner. There are other options like MTBE, but they are carcinogens that find their way into drinking water.
2) Ethanol production yields a net energy gain of at least 37% and some studies show it to be much more than that.
3) Ethanol at up to 10% concentration has zero negative impact on existing vehicles.
4) Ethanol at up to 85% concentration has zero negative impact on flex fuel vehicles, which car manufacturers are shifting toward. Getting a flex fuel vehicle is still a good investment to protect resale value even if you don't want to burn ethanol.
5) The CO2 released from the combustion of ethanol is more than offset from CO2 absorbed during the growth of the corn plant itself. Thus fuel ethanol is a greenhouse gas neutral solution.
6) Starch-based ethanol (i.e. corn, wheat) cannot replace all of our fuel needs, but it can take a major bite out of our dependency on foreign oil. As the market for ethanol develops, expect cellulose-based ethanol to completely fill our gasoline needs.
7) Ethanol is the only solution that brings a viable roadmap to the table. There is a plan for cars (shifting to E85 vehicles) and a plan for the fuel source (shifting to cellulose). Sure, there are moon-shot solutions out there too, but are you ready to take a chance on your second-most valuable asset (your car)? Remember people who got stuck with Beta VCR's when the VHS format won-out? Now picture that on a $30,000 car instead of a $300 VCR.
8) Ethanol shifts dollars that would otherwise be shipped to the middle east and instead puts those dollars in the hands of farmers. That shift alone would eradicate 25% of our entire US trade deficit.
So yeah... ethanol is a good idea.
2) Ethanol production yields a net energy gain of at least 37% and some studies show it to be much more than that.
3) Ethanol at up to 10% concentration has zero negative impact on existing vehicles.
4) Ethanol at up to 85% concentration has zero negative impact on flex fuel vehicles, which car manufacturers are shifting toward. Getting a flex fuel vehicle is still a good investment to protect resale value even if you don't want to burn ethanol.
5) The CO2 released from the combustion of ethanol is more than offset from CO2 absorbed during the growth of the corn plant itself. Thus fuel ethanol is a greenhouse gas neutral solution.
6) Starch-based ethanol (i.e. corn, wheat) cannot replace all of our fuel needs, but it can take a major bite out of our dependency on foreign oil. As the market for ethanol develops, expect cellulose-based ethanol to completely fill our gasoline needs.
7) Ethanol is the only solution that brings a viable roadmap to the table. There is a plan for cars (shifting to E85 vehicles) and a plan for the fuel source (shifting to cellulose). Sure, there are moon-shot solutions out there too, but are you ready to take a chance on your second-most valuable asset (your car)? Remember people who got stuck with Beta VCR's when the VHS format won-out? Now picture that on a $30,000 car instead of a $300 VCR.
8) Ethanol shifts dollars that would otherwise be shipped to the middle east and instead puts those dollars in the hands of farmers. That shift alone would eradicate 25% of our entire US trade deficit.
So yeah... ethanol is a good idea.
mrplunkey
New member
You'll see them in the midwest first I'll bet. Right now we're hijacking every gallon of ethanol we can find to replace MTBE though. Once we top 9 B/gallons of ethanol a year in production (100% increase in ethanol production above 2006 levels), it will start spilling-over into E85.samoth said:I've still never seen a gas station with E85 gas...
chewyxrage
New member
samoth said:I've still never seen a gas station with E85 gas...
There's some in IL, the gov signed some bill to build something close to 100 more soon.
John C Calhoun
New member
Nice cut and paste. Do you think corn becomes ethanol by itself? It turns out that it takes more energy to produce ethanol (at least from corn and soybeans) than it creates. Don't believe me here is a study from Cornell scientists.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html
Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study.
"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable."
Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).
In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:
corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:
soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In assessing inputs, the researchers considered such factors as the energy used in producing the crop (including production of pesticides and fertilizer, running farm machinery and irrigating, grinding and transporting the crop) and in fermenting/distilling the ethanol from the water mix. Although additional costs are incurred, such as federal and state subsidies that are passed on to consumers and the costs associated with environmental pollution or degradation, these figures were not included in the analysis.
"The United State desperately needs a liquid fuel replacement for oil in the near future," says Pimentel, "but producing ethanol or biodiesel from plant biomass is going down the wrong road, because you use more energy to produce these fuels than you get out from the combustion of these products."
Although Pimentel advocates the use of burning biomass to produce thermal energy (to heat homes, for example), he deplores the use of biomass for liquid fuel. "The government spends more than $3 billion a year to subsidize ethanol production when it does not provide a net energy balance or gain, is not a renewable energy source or an economical fuel. Further, its production and use contribute to air, water and soil pollution and global warming," Pimentel says. He points out that the vast majority of the subsidies do not go to farmers but to large ethanol-producing corporations.
"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, economy or the environment," says Pimentel. "Ethanol production requires large fossil energy input, and therefore, it is contributing to oil and natural gas imports and U.S. deficits." He says the country should instead focus its efforts on producing electrical energy from photovoltaic cells, wind power and burning biomass and producing fuel from hydrogen conversion.
In other words it takes about 1.5 gallons of petroleum to produce a gallon of ethanol which has less energy output than gasoline. Real shrewd - but hey corn producers like it.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html
Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study.
"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable."
Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).
In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:
corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:
soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In assessing inputs, the researchers considered such factors as the energy used in producing the crop (including production of pesticides and fertilizer, running farm machinery and irrigating, grinding and transporting the crop) and in fermenting/distilling the ethanol from the water mix. Although additional costs are incurred, such as federal and state subsidies that are passed on to consumers and the costs associated with environmental pollution or degradation, these figures were not included in the analysis.
"The United State desperately needs a liquid fuel replacement for oil in the near future," says Pimentel, "but producing ethanol or biodiesel from plant biomass is going down the wrong road, because you use more energy to produce these fuels than you get out from the combustion of these products."
Although Pimentel advocates the use of burning biomass to produce thermal energy (to heat homes, for example), he deplores the use of biomass for liquid fuel. "The government spends more than $3 billion a year to subsidize ethanol production when it does not provide a net energy balance or gain, is not a renewable energy source or an economical fuel. Further, its production and use contribute to air, water and soil pollution and global warming," Pimentel says. He points out that the vast majority of the subsidies do not go to farmers but to large ethanol-producing corporations.
"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, economy or the environment," says Pimentel. "Ethanol production requires large fossil energy input, and therefore, it is contributing to oil and natural gas imports and U.S. deficits." He says the country should instead focus its efforts on producing electrical energy from photovoltaic cells, wind power and burning biomass and producing fuel from hydrogen conversion.
In other words it takes about 1.5 gallons of petroleum to produce a gallon of ethanol which has less energy output than gasoline. Real shrewd - but hey corn producers like it.
mrplunkey
New member
That isn't cut-and-paste... it's a list of facts I commonly go through with people 2-3 times per week.John C Calhoun said:
And that Cornell study is weak. You'll always be able to find a study to support your position though. I especially liked this little misleading quote: "its production and use contribute to air, water and soil pollution and global warming" -- that's a great example. Either
1) The author is blatantly leaving-out the step of GROWING the corn in the first place, which soaks-up as much or more carbon dioxide than production and combustion of ethanol produces. But hey, you don't mention things like that when you want to slant an article in a particular direction.
OR
2) The author is just ignorant of the fact that corn needs CO2 to grow. Maybe he's just out of the loop on that one.
And good luck with those voltaic cells.
mrplunkey
New member
oh, and all the modern (dry) ethanol mills are closed water systems. They pollute virtually no water, as all process water is recirculated back into the cook tank.
Ethanol plants drive a lot of evaporation, but evaporated water is far from polluted.
But again, you don't want to mention things like that when it doesn't fit your article's slant.
Ethanol plants drive a lot of evaporation, but evaporated water is far from polluted.
But again, you don't want to mention things like that when it doesn't fit your article's slant.
scenario
John C Calhoun
New member
mrplunkey said:
what don't you comprehend ? Using the products we use to convert biomass to ethanol - namely corn and soybean takes more energy than it produces. Where does that energy come from - oil or coal burning power plants. The contribution to more pollution arises from the need to use fossil fuels to produce some ethanol. Now using a more efficient feed stock such as sugarcane to produce the ethanol might result in a sustainable energy source; however, sugarcane only grows well in tropical climates and thus is not practical for the US. Brazil has been able to effectively use ethanol as a fuel since sugarcane grows well in their climate. The authors of that article have no slant, they are simply stating something that is pretty clear, corn is not, and never will be an effective feedstock for ethanol production since it requires more energy to produce it than it yields. Find a good feedstock in the US and you might have a sustainable energy source - unfortunately corn is not it, but gov. policy provides enormous subsidies for corn growers largely because of political pressure from pols in corn growing states with the false promise of a sustainable energy source.
mrplunkey
New member
And the part you are missing is that the article is incorrect.John C Calhoun said:
Ethanol from corn does produce a net energy gain. It does require some natural gas to generate heat, but its still a net energy gain.
People love to focus on these huge moon-shot solutions for alternatives to gasoline-fueled cars when the obvious solution is right here under our noses.
digimon7068
New member
theoak01 said:
alcohol is caustic to fuel lines?? please elaborate. . .
digimon7068
New member
anthrax said:
hmmm. . .let's see. . .well we could put all the farmers back to work. . .
every vehicle in the u.s. produced since 1990-something will run on up to 15-percent ethanol w/o any modifications. . .six months of EVERYONE using 15-percent ethanol would end the "war in iraq". . .no money. . .no bullets. . .no war. . .how's that for a benefit??
mrplunkey
New member
High concentrations (i.e. 85% a.k.a. E85) can deteriorate some non-stainless components in a car. The consensus is 10% is guaranteed safe and up to 20% is believed safe.digimon7068 said:
You'll never see fuel ethanol above 85% either though. The other 15% needs to be more volatile so cars can start on cold mornings.
mrplunkey
New member
But... but... it's more fun to instead focus on net energy gains and moon-shot technologies where genetically-engineered bacteria manufacture hydrogen fuel cells directly from old telephone books!digimon7068 said:
Don't get all rational and pragmatic here. Cutting-off the terrorists' supply of money isn't an elegant enough solution.
digimon7068
New member
mrplunkey said:
interesting. . .so, is it safe to assume that my e-85 ready suburban has stainless fuel lines??
digimon7068
New member
mrplunkey said:
i specifically bought it because i fully intend to use e-85. . .i needed a big ass car. . .too many youngin's. . .and i like a full frame and 4 wheel drive for safety reasons. . .i chose the suburban for that feature alone. . .well. . .that, and it gets 20+ mpg on the highway. . .gotta love the vortec. . .one problem. . .no e-85 (or any other "e" for that matter) in our area yet
every time there's a "killed in iraq" death notice in our newspaper, i make a copy and send it to my local reps, state senators, etc. and i ask them where the F-U-C-K my e-85 is. . .i won't rest until the fucking arabs are drinking their oil. . .FUCK THEM 
damnit plunky, do we have to go through this every time?
chilidog0425
New member
cellulosic biomass (woody waste) is an upcoming solution. the air quality regulations in california are increasingly preventing farmers from burning woody waste material and currently it ends up in the landfill. that material that is essentially free energy can be used to create ethanol. in fact, i am invested in a private company that is in the process of developing several facilities using a proprietary process to this end.
ethanol is currently blended into the gasoline we buy in california at a concentration of 5.7%. and yes, modern cars can burn it at much higher rates than that. even if you don't have a FFV (flexible fuel vehicle), you can retrofit your car at a cost of several hundred dollars to be able to burn E-85. true, there are not many outlets to purchase e-85 at this point, but once the market demands it, they will come.
ethanol is currently blended into the gasoline we buy in california at a concentration of 5.7%. and yes, modern cars can burn it at much higher rates than that. even if you don't have a FFV (flexible fuel vehicle), you can retrofit your car at a cost of several hundred dollars to be able to burn E-85. true, there are not many outlets to purchase e-85 at this point, but once the market demands it, they will come.
mrplunkey
New member
I love it!digimon7068 said:i specifically bought it because i fully intend to use e-85. . .i needed a big ass car. . .too many youngin's. . .and i like a full frame and 4 wheel drive for safety reasons. . .i chose the suburban for that feature alone. . .well. . .that, and it gets 20+ mpg on the highway. . .gotta love the vortec. . .one problem. . .no e-85 (or any other "e" for that matter) in our area yet
Nice touch sending that to a local representative too. We need more people doing that. Its surprising the effect that something like that can have.
As far as E85 goes, we need 9B gallons/year for ethanol just to handle MTBE replacement. After that point, expect to see E85 at pumps particularly in the midwest.
chilidog0425
New member
mrplunkey said:
mr plunkey,
here is a quote from the website (www.novafuels.com) of the company i was referring to:
mrplunkey
New member
Brazil can make the stuff a *lot* cheaper than starch-based sources can. If we imported sugar cane-based ethanol we'd never get domestic production off the ground.anthrax said:
There is currently a tariff ($0.54 or $0.55 / gallon) on Brazillian ethanol precisely for that reason.
chilidog0425
New member
plunkey,
what do you do? and how does it relate to ethanol?
also, i do own some diebold and have for a couple years. do you have some advice for me?
what do you do? and how does it relate to ethanol?
also, i do own some diebold and have for a couple years. do you have some advice for me?
mrplunkey
New member
I do fuel ethanol. We have a group of investors out of Knoxville that have invested in three ethanol plants (fairly major positions... largest shareholder in one of the plants). Recently, we began a three year, seven plant deal at sites in Illinois.chilidog0425 said:
I'm an investor in the group (as is my family) but I also head-up the independant engineers that manage the projects. We're using Delta-T as our technology/process provider and Aker Kvaerner as our construction company. We were using Lurgi technology but booted them about a month ago.
Our plants are 113M gallons/year non-denatured dry mills. We use traditional cook technology (not quite into "cold cook" yet) and we are non-fractionated as well. We also use traditional alphamylase/glucoamylase enzymes from Novazym along with yeast-based fermentation (and giving cream yeast a hard look next month). Our DDGS is all dried, as we do no wet cake. We are also considering spinning-out the corn oil in our DDGS, but haven't committed to that yet.
Hope that helps
mrplunkey
New member
Oh... and the diebold thing is a joke.chilidog0425 said:
We have a guy here who finds a conspiracy around every corner. One of his flavor-of-the-month conspiracies was that the Republican powers that be had reprogrammed all the Diebold voting machines to insure Republicans won all the elections. I made it sig worthy because it became his standard answer to every single political post.
And I don't know a thing about Diebold stock... the stock market in general scares me because there are so many non-financial factors and "fluff" baked into the price of stocks today.
