22
Ethanol is Not the Fuel of the Future
20 Comments | Posted by gimme-five in Environment, Politics, Technology
I just got back from an interesting talk by a man named David Pimentel, who has written and given lots of advice regarding the national use of ethanol and biodiesel as sources of fuel to replace gasoline. Although many people believe that ethanol will be the fuel of the future that will free us from our dependence on oil, Pimentel disagrees. He asserts that ethanol production is economically unsound, environmentally unfriendly, geographically impractical, and ethically questionable.
Ethanol production is economically unsound, according to Pimentel. This is because it costs much more energy to produce ethanol than it creates. According to his January 2005 paper on ethanol and biodiesel, the following energy balances exist for these production techniques:
- Corn Grain to Ethanol: -29%.
- Switchgrass to Ethanol: -50%.
- Wood Biomass to Ethanol: -57%.
In other words, it costs 29% more fossil energy to produce a given amount of ethanol than the energy the ethanol itself contains (that’s a jumbled sentence!). So if you produce 1000BTU of energy worth of ethanol, it will cost you 1290BTU of energy to produce it.
Ethanol production is also environmentally unfriendly. First and foremost, this is because much of the energy used in producing ethanol will come from dirty sources, such as oil and coal (in the long run it could be shifted to solar and other green sources, mitigating this first problem). Secondly, corn crops, which are what lobbyists are really calling for to be the source of ethanol in the future, are notorious for destroying soil and harming the surrounding environment. A lot of this has to do with nitrogen fertilizer, herbicides, and insecticides that are necessarily for growing the corn crop. According to Pimentel’s paper, US corn production causes more total soil erosion than any other US crop.
Pimentel also asserts that ethanol is geographically impractical. Even in the idealistic situation where all of the energy of producing ethanol could be powered by “green” energy, there is simply not enough land to go around, particularly in the situation of corn-based ethanol. Last year, according to the Department of Energy, 5 billion gallons of ethanol were produced. It offset 1% of total oil usage, while using 20% of the total corn crop. If we used 100% of all US corn to produce ethanol, only 7% of total US oil usage would be offset. The same goes for switchgrass, wood biomass, and using things such as soybeans and sunflowers to create biodiesel.
Pimentel also raises the point that using ethanol for fuel is ethically questionable. He points out that there are 6.5 billion people in the world, and 3.7 billion of those are malnourished. Should we be using our corn crop to inefficiently power our cars, or could it better be used to feed the hungry.
Many critiques have been raised about Pimentel’s stance on ethanol and the data from his paper. The most prominent of these is that his data are very old (from 1979). I personally checked the paper he wrote, and the only data from 1979 amounted to the cost of stainless steel, steel, and cement in ethanol production. All in all, it was such a miniscule percentage of his costs (less than 1% of corn ethanol energy costs), that even if these costs were completely removed, ethanol production would still have nearly the same negative energy balance.
Long story short, Pimentel does not believe that ethanol fuel, unless serious changes are made in terms of cultivation and production, will have a significant role in powering our nation’s transportation. Instead, he believes we need to focus on conservation and research. I’m inclined to agree with him on that point.
However, he did make some relatively extreme policy proposals at the end of his talk. These were:
- Increase mass transit (this isn’t crazy, this is rational)
- Raise gasoline prices to $10/gallon. (I advocate an increase in a gasoline excise tax, but to $10/gallon? This might be too much. It’s also politically impossible.)
- Increase costs of electricity from ~7 cents to ~30 cents/kwh. (once again, that’s more than quadrupling)
I was able to ask Mr. Pimentel a question after his presentation. The question and answer went something like this (not a direct quote):
Me: In the US, we do have technologies that can generate electricity in a renewable fashion, such as solar, hydroelectric, and wind power. However, these don’t necessarily solve our liquid fuel problem. What do you see in the future replacing gasoline as a method of power for transportation, particularly over long distances? Do you see a major role for an electric car?
Mr. Pimentel: Yes, I do see a role for an electric car in the future, especially for people living in the city. In the long term, I see hydrogen acting as a fuel for the future, but it’s far from perfect, and in particular, it won’t work at all in airplanes, due to the heavy weight of the tanks required to store it. Furthermore, it still has a small output/input energy ratio.
I thought it was interesting that he said hydrogen was really going to be the “energy of the future,” in terms of transportation. From what I had been reading over the past year or so, more and more it looks like hydrogen is a bust, as it costs so much energy to produce, is highly explosive, and requires incredibly expensive, heavy tanks to store it with.
Also, I’ll include some random facts he mentioned that I found interesting:
- The only reason ethanol is on the market in the US or anywhere in the world is because of huge subsidies.
- Using fission to produce all of the energy in the US would raise water temperatures in the US by 13 degrees Celsius (could someone fact check this for me? I don’t believe it, but it’s an interesting point)
- Theoretically, on earth, we have 40 years of oil and 40 years of natural gasoline left.
- Using wood chips for electricity, from a sustainable forest in Vermont, one person requires two hectares of forest for energy. The price is only 6 cents per kwh, but the land area necessary is unsustainable worldwide.
- Claim: the only reason why some studies show ethanol having a positive energy balance is due to omitting certain parts of the production process.
- Solar energy captured by plants is only 0.1%, versus hundreds of times that for photovoltaics. (fact check needed)
Ed Note: I did not include sources for these facts, although they can all be found in Pimentel’s paper. His paper was published in Natural Resources Research, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2005, and is entitled Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood; Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower. You can find a short summary of his paper here.
20 Comments for Ethanol is Not the Fuel of the Future
Francesco DeParis | March 22, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Author comment by George | March 22, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Francesco,
Thanks for the comment. I’ll mention what Pimentel said about some of the topics you mention in your comment. Granted, I do not consider myself an expert, but I’m inclined to believe a lot of what he says based on some of the analysis in his paper.
The majority of US ethanol production comes from corn. I think this is a terrible idea and agree we shouldn’t be using an edible feedstock, especially one so inefficient for ethanol production.
Although corn is an inefficient way to produce ethanol, Pimentel not only shows corn is inefficient but also cellulosic (switchgrass and wood biomass) are inefficient sources of ethanol production.
Cellulosic ethanol has not hit the ground running yet… switchgrass, poplar hybrids, miscanthus, corn stover, sugarcane bagasse, waste paper pulp, wood chips, etc… switchgrass, can grow without much care (water, fertilizer, etc…)
I don’t know much about some of these sources of ethanol you mention here… but I’ll do a little background research on it to get more information. But even taking into account the care that switchgrass requires, Pimentel has found a very negative energy balance because the energy yield is low.
Also, cellulosic ethanol produces a tough, energy-rich byproduct called lignin which produces enough electricity to power the entire ethanol production as well as place excess energy on the local grid.
Pimentel mentioned this in his talk. I don’t remember exactly what he said, but I believe he said that although in theory, lignin has a lot of energy stored in it, the costs of using an acid to separate the non-usable parts from the usable and then a base to neutralize it, followed by extraction from water is very high and negates lignin’s benefits. I don’t know exactly though… would you mind explaining lignin to me? I’d love to know more about the topic.
Also, in reference to Brazil, I agree with you that sugarcane is more efficient than other sources for ethanol. However, isn’t Brazil still subsidizing ethanol pretty heavily while placing a huge tax on gasoline?
Sorry this response seems really negative. In a positive light, I really like your blog and I’ve added it to my RSS feeds. Please do respond to this comment, I’d love to hear more about your views on ethanol.
Gary Dikkers | March 24, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Francesco Deparis said:
Also, you did not mention how well Brazil has perfected the ethanol model. They use sugar instead of corn, which is much more efficient than corn. Sugar can easily be transformed into ethanol while corn needs an enzyme, albeit a much cheaper one than the cellulosic enzyme, that converts starch into sugar that can then be fermented. Brazil is currently producing sugar based ethanol at 80 cents/gallon and is currently a leading ethanol exporter.
Francesco,
You are correct; Brazil has had great success in using sugar cane ethanol as a motor fuel. But there are few few parallels between Brazil and the United States. Brazil has several advantages that don’t exist here:
It is about eight times as efficient making alcohol from the sugar in cane as from the starch in corn.
Brazil has the climate and soils conducive to growing sugar cane. In the U.S. only Florida, Louisiana, parts of Texas, and Hawaii, have the climate conducive to growing cane.
Brazil has vast tracts of inexpensive, undeveloped land at the tropical latitudes conducive to growing cane. When they need more land, all they have to do is clear more tropical forest.
Brazil has a large supply of dirt-cheap, machete-swinging manual laborers. We don’t have or want that in the U.S. Our farmers are understandably reluctant to wade into their cornfields swinging a machete.
But by far the biggest difference is that on a per capita basis, Brazil uses only 12% as much energy for transportation as we do. If they increased their transportation energy use eight-fold to match ours, they too would have to import oil.
Brazil’s success is instructive, but please understand it for what it is
Best regards,
Gary Dikkers
Rob | March 26, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Is there any real concern to allegations that there has been more soil errorsion and deforrestation so Brazil can farm more sugar cane?
Francesco DeParis | March 26, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Wow, great comments! I think there are two perspectives that have to be considered here, the environmental, and the investor. The environmentalist wants to decrease dependence on oil due to the polluting qualities of oil-based fuel emissions. The investor requires a strategic demand/supply curve that will utlimately yield him a profit.
This is one of the reasons why we keep seeing two opinions to every technology. Some say corn is net-energy negative, others say positive, and the same goes for other alternative fuels.
So are we discussing inefficient in terms of the environmental impact, or the financial impact? The companies working on cellulosic ethanol have no interest in losing money. Due to their inability to clearly communicate their technology’s position on the $ value chain, we still do not know exactly how profitable or un-profitable they are. As an investor, alternative fuels can have a negative energy balance,but still be viable but as long as they are turning a profit.
Regarding the efficiency of the feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol, I have found numerous research studies both private and government funded that show the terrific ethanol yields available from that process. I suggest you start with a simple google search and move up the chain from there.
Please keep in mind that the money invested into cellulosic ethanol is quite new, and we will not see that many milestones communicated to the public for awhile. What we do know is that the cellulosic process is more complex, but has the potential ability to have a positive energy balance due to the unique characteristics of cellulose rich plants. We should all look forward to the results when Celunol and Iogen, among others, complete and run their commercial cellulosic ethanol test-plants. I have heard from various industry-insiders that cellulosic ethanol will not turn a profit for the next 5 years, but that the technology and benefits it reaps will allow it to give both the environment and investors the benefits alternative fuels have touted for so long.
Regarding Brazil, I have read that Brazil did heavily subsidize the domestic ethanol industry, but then decided to stop/limit it to let the industry become efficient. Many companies went under and the survivors were forced to perfect the process and the market. That is not to say that government subsidies are completely non-existant in Brazil, but the maturity of the industry and expertise of the participants present a situation that would not need subsidies to succeed.
Author comment by George | March 26, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Francesco,
I agree with you that the technology will improve over time. I haven’t had the opportunity to speak with industry leaders, however, because ethanol production is a new technology, there is a lot of room for refinement of the process and thus major improvements in efficiency.
However, even if ethanol (cellulosic or otherwise) has a net positive energy balance, seeing it on a large scale is doubtful. There’s just not enough land area.
According to the department of Energy, last year, 5 billion gallons of ethanol were produced, which was the equivalent of offsetting 1% of all oil consumption. These 5 billion gallons required 20% of all corn. If 100% of all corn were diverted to produce ethanol, Pimentel predicts only 7% of total oil consumption would be offset.
Although Brazil’s use of sugarcane is innovative, I think its success hinges on two factors: (1) Its climate is conducive to growing cane. The US climate is too cool except for in parts of Florida, for instance. (2) It uses a lot less energy per capita and per acre than the US.
Brazil, using sugarcane as the feedstock for ethanol, is producing some 4 billion gallons a year, satisfying 40% of its automotive fuel needs. The United States, using corn as the feedstock, produced 3.4 billion gallons of ethanol in 2004, supplying just under 2% of the fuel used by its vast automotive fleet. Source:http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=5077
Switchgrass looks slightly more promising but the net energy yield is very negative at the moment and it would still require a ton of land.
I did find via the above quotation’s source that Brazil did indeed phase out ethanol subsidies, so that is worth noting.
Sorry this is all jumbled and out of order. At the moment I think more research should be undertaken on cellulosic ethanol and switchgrass conversion efficiency, however, with the gigantic subsidies that the corn ethanol industry is getting, do you think that will happen? I feel that corn ethanol subsidies in the US are purely political, and it’s always difficult to change something like that…
Anonymous | March 26, 2007 at 11:05 pm
The Economist had an article on this stuff
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=157883
News for the day on this.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/03/26/bush.automakers.ap/index.html
Author comment by George | March 27, 2007 at 8:16 am
Interesting articles.
CNN’s was typical Detroit acting on obvious incentives
- Automakers reportedly spent “very little time” discussing fuel economy standards.
- Detroit automakers claim ethanol is “the answer.” Wagoner said that there’s nothing that can be done to reduce demand for oil like E85.
Economist article: started off really optimistic for ethanol made from trees, then gets a little scary
- Points out that, in theory, trees and biomass to ethanol conversions could produce 1600% energy than used as an input.
- However, the technology is nowhere near that efficient. The problem is that the enzymes required for the conversion are expensive and inefficient (implying the net energy balance is negative)
Author comment by George | March 27, 2007 at 8:17 am
Edit: I guess I shouldn’t have said “scary.” I mean, less optimistic.
Author comment by George | March 27, 2007 at 9:31 am
Or I could have said pessimistic. Wow, I can’t write today.
Francesco DeParis | March 30, 2007 at 1:21 pm
The argument for land mass is based on using corn. Corn is inefficient and should not be considered a long-term fuel stock for ethanol production. Replacing corn crops with higher energy yielding crops will ultimately put us in a better position.
Author comment by George | April 1, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Yeah but even with crops that have double the energy yield per hectare (which is optimistic), we still have a huge land mass problem, unless I’m grossly mistaken.
An interesting thing to note is that plants capture about 0.1% of the sun’s energy, whereas photovoltaics capture something like 10% (maybe more, I’m not sure).
I should probably find a source for that fact, but right now I’m too busy to do so. Anyone want to look up a source?
Bart | April 4, 2007 at 3:03 pm
I love solar power I think over the next few years it’s going to be exploding even more… as performance of solar panels goes up people are going to be adopting it everywhere they can… after all it’s free energy :) BTW here is more solar power information -> Solar Power
Joe Touchole | July 25, 2007 at 4:46 am
In the first 5 years of the mass production of the automobile engine efficiency increased over 32.6 percent. If you compare that to today’s vehicle, and what is possible we could have engines operating at over 1264.78% as shown by the MIT studies of the 90′s. We all realize what drives technology and right now those people aren’t concerned over what’s best for this country. Citing the burning efficiency of today’s ethanol engines with not factoring in technological advances, discounts history.
Zubair.Chaudary.com » Blog Archive » Quote by Ethanol is Not the Fuel of the Future » gimme-five | August 3, 2007 at 10:32 am
[...] Ethanol is Not the Fuel of the Future » gimme-five This entry was posted on Friday, August 3rd, 2007 at 3:15 am and is filed under Web Stumbling. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. [...]
Uncle B | June 3, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Ethanol is not as good as bio-diesel simply because diesel engines get more miles per BTU than lower compression gas or gas/ethanol engines do. A fact of physics boys! If you are going to grow it, grow the best possible fuel for the most efficient engine, even the assholes at GM will have to admit that European diesels are more efficient than anything they currently build! Next, we must get rid of the 1930s groupthink automotive engineers before they ruin the economy by wasting research money producing 620 hp Vettes in a 21st century, diesel/electric hybrid, carbon fiber bodied era. The next question, Why corn? someone forgot to slip the President a note explaining to him that hemp produces more oil per acre and gives us fiber as well! Hell, the algae boys do better per acre with swampwater at making bio-diesel. Diesel is a bad word in the American car world after what GM did, and rightly so, but VW, and BMW are about to show America how a diesel should be built, and when run on bio-diesel they don’t stink! Ethanol fits Brazil and their climate. We are further north, in a cooler climate. We must grow something that suits our circumstances, right? We need and oily plant or algae to make bio-diesel, a simple fact.
The ineffiency of corn ethanol as fuel | Breakfast at Stefanie's | June 8, 2008 at 1:12 pm
[...] wrote an article a while ago about the downsides of producing ethanol as a transportation fuel. These downsides, in short, [...]
eth | April 21, 2009 at 4:47 pm
If one is “promoting” for the oil industry – one should ask for a cash compensation. After all Pimentel traded his academic status in entomology for their money to be a willing and vocal mouthpiece. Padtzek was more honest. He openly admitted working for the oil industry.
shelly | July 14, 2010 at 1:55 pm
A study on ethanol isn’t complete without Hemp, which has been banned on efforts of the petroleum industry. Hemp is grown most efficiently and produces ethanol most efficiently.
Theo | March 11, 2011 at 5:44 pm
“Using fission to produce all of the energy in the US would raise water temperatures in the US by 13 degrees Celsius.”
This is just false. I do not know how or where this claim came into existence.
Nuclear power is the cleanest form of energy besides wind power, but literally millions of times more efficient.
Although at this point we are unsure if ethanol is THE fuel of the future, as there are many other options based on different technologies, the promise ethanol holds is quite great.
Pimentel seems to base his argument on the US Ethanol Industry. The majority of US ethanol production comes from corn. I think this is a terrible idea and agree we shouldn’t be using an edible feedstock, especially one so inefficient for ethanol production.
That being said, there are other alternative sources of ethanol production. Cellulosic ethanol has not hit the ground running yet as a commercial plant has yet to be built, but it does use feedstocks that are plentiful, cheap, and not consumed by humans such as: switchgrass, poplar hybrids, miscanthus, corn stover, sugarcane bagasse, waste paper pulp, wood chips, etc…These types of feedstock have much higher yields of ethanol/acre than corn does, and some, like switchgrass, can grow without much care (water, fertilizer, etc…). Also, cellulosic ethanol produces a tough, energy-rich byproduct called lignin which produces enough electricity to power the entire ethanol production as well as place excess energy on the local grid. There are several plants in Florida and Brazil that are experimenting with using sugarcane waste (bagasse) to produce electricity.
Also, you did not mention how well Brazil has perfected the ethanol model. They use sugar instead of corn, which is much more efficient than corn. Sugar can easily be transformed into ethanol while corn needs an enzyme, albeit a much cheaper one than the cellulosic enzyme, that converts starch into sugar that can then be fermented. Brazil is currently producing sugar based ethanol at 80 cents/gallon and is currently a leading ethanol exporter. They are doing this while maintaining their position as the #1 producer of raw sugar…Commodity prices have been affected very little over the past 20 years
What I do agree with Pimentel on is that the US has unfortunately created the ethanol industry on a crop that it should not have chosen: corn. I know Brazil’s climate makes growing sugarcane very easy, but I am sure there is a crop with similar ethanol output as sugarcane that the US could look into growing.
I post a lot on the topic of ethanol feasibility on:
Energy Spin: Alternative Energy Blog For Investors
Cheers,
Francesco DeParis