Ethanol has a negative energy balance? Where are you getting these numbers from, the discredited Pimentel study? Every other credible examination shows a 20-60% gain in net energy using current technology and cellulosic ethanol may go beyond this as we learn more about the process and make the production process more efficient. Cellulosic ethanol feedstocks like switchgrass and other native grasses have almost no input requirements, which is why they were growing in the middle of the US for centuries before people arrived to replace them with other plants, and create a _net negative_ CO2 return by locking carbon into the soil through the rot structures.

Corn-based ethanol has many short-term problems that cellulosic ethanol eliminates, but we are never going to have an energy infrastructure in place for cellulosic ethanol unless we prime the pump with corn-based ethanol.

Citations of sources?

What you need to look at is ethanol from sugar vs from corn. You will find that ethanol from sugar is more efficient, but with the USA’s tariff on sugar cane imports it dose not make it cost efficient.

I don’t understand. All forms of fuel production require more energy input than is ultimately made available by the fuel itself. That’s the Second Law of Thermodynamics in action.

If producing ethanol from corn requires only 29% more energy than is contained in the fuel, well, that’s not all that bad. Just as oil refineries can be powered by part of their oil production, the process of converting corn to ethanol can be powered by part of the ethanol production. (Of course, it may be better in practice to provide this power from some other source, since the goal of the ethanol production is to provide fuel for motor vehicles. I find it a little strange that natural gas seems to be the preferred energy source for this conversion, since natural gas can be used directly by motor vehicles, and there’s no shortage of the stuff just yet.)

Based on the numbers presented here, energy efficiency is not a good argument. However, I think the other arguments– the environmental costs of corn farming and the effect on the food market– are persuasive, and I agree with the conclusion that ethanol from corn is not a good fuel source today.

Once oil production begins to decline, however– whether you believe that has already happened, will happen soon, or will not happen until 2050 or later– we’re going to need alternative fuel sources. That means it’s probably a good idea to start collecting data on full-scale production processes. If we’ve learned enough about turning corn into ethanol, let’s move on to switchgrass and whatever other sources seem attractive.

. png

Why so many people writes more than read, it’s the equivalent of talking more than earing.

In Brazil ethanol was used for more than 20 years as a car fuel and have a lot of producers without government subsides having lot of profits.

Sure it takes more energy, but until someone doesn’t change thermodynamics laws it will stay as it is.

Try search sugarcane ethanol or alcool.

The Pimentel results have been discredited by more than just the DoE. His claims regarding the lifecycle costs for ethanol production were shown to be wildly inaccurate and horribly out of date. His claims regarding ethanol production efficiency have also been shown to be BS.

Take a look at the MSU studies for counter-examples.

Peter G, you are confused. All fuels don’t take more energy to produce than is received. You are misunderstanding the second law of thermodynamics.

Oil exists already as fuel. It’s transported and purified to gasoline, which takes some energy but not more than what the gasoline provides. People put in X amount of energy into transport and purification and receive X+Y back.

Ethanol, on the other hand, requires Z amount of energy to convert the plant matter to fuel and they receive Z-W back. Between farming the plant matter, processing the results, and transporting it, it costs MORE in energy than it provides.

Pimental is up to date? Do you mean the corn production statistics he uses from 1992 or the ethanol production efficiency numbers that are from the mid 90s? I can see that you have already made up your mind and will gravitate to the studies that support your view, but you should perhaps stop and ask yourself why it is that the Pimentel study is the aberrant data point when compared to all other ethanol studies.

Argonne National Lab 2005: 35% net gain from ethanol
USDA 2004 (update of 2002 study): 67% net gain
Univ. of Minnesota: 34% net gain
Michigan State University 2002: 56% net gain

Since 1995 there have been nine widely examined studies that have shown ethanol to be a net gain of some degree and only _one_ study that shows a net energy loss. I guess you think that the study by the entomologist is more credible than ones from chemical engineers and agricultural scientists…

If you really want some good references to critiques of Pimentel’s “research” along with references to studies that show the various mistakes/deceptions in Pimentel’s papers I suggest you poke around Journey to Forever for a bit.

If you add in all the energy and costs to fight wars to get oil. Ethanol is far cheaper. Everything is cheaper that does tranfers wealth to terrorist states that have oil. Wake up all you ethanol haters.

Sorry, but that data is not only old, but horribly wrong. The net output for switchgrass ratio is 4:1, making it a 300% net gain. Do some more research before you start posting old inaccurate data.

Quote:
“Sugarcane, at 1:8, yields about eight units of energy for every one unit invested to grow, harvest and convert the cane into ethanol. The fibrous cane material that remains after the sugar has been extracted (also known as bagasse) is used to provide heat (read: energy) in the distillation process. In most cases, this eliminates the need for energy from an external source. One unit of energy is used for every five units provided by the Miscanthus-based ethanol fuel. Switchgrass’s net energy yield is slightly less, at about 1:4. Sugar beets yield nearly two units of energy for every one unit that is used to grow and convert the crop into ethanol. Corn lies near the very bottom of the list at 1:1.4.”

Source: http://www.cleanhouston.org/energy/features/ethanol2.htm

Corn ethanol is indeed VERY bad.

Sugar cane ethanol is quite good and unlike the US, Brazil has HUUUUGE amounts of free land to grow it.

That’s why it scares the shit out of Americans…

Hemp.

Sorry, but I just want to clear up a misconception about the second law of thermodynamics. Of course more energy is put into producing fuel than the energy that comes from the fuel, but in fossil fuels and other kinds of fuels the energy ultimately comes from the sun. We do nothing to store up potential energy in those fuels. What George is talking about is the energy put into making ethanol usable, which requires other fuels to be expended. The energy that is utilized from passive exposure to the sun is not taken into consideration; only the energy used in processes carried out by humans is taken into consideration. I’ve hear this as being a problem for Hydrogen fuel. If you have to burn more fuel to organize hydrogen into hydrogen cells than then energy that comes out from the hydrogen cell, then it’s pointless.

I agree, ethanol is not the future. neither is hydrogen. both are too expensive. I believe that the cost of photovoltaics will come down and that solar energy is the future. as for batteries, we won’t need them if transport is accomplished with a dualmode system, where vehicles will travel large distances on rails or a guideway and the final short distances conventionally on roads.

Oil production has had how many years to squeeze every penny of profit out of the business?
Ethanol might not be the best source, but from the amount of fertilizer being slung around here, we could have grown another years crop.
Bottom line, we have to start somewhere, nobody took the black sludge out of the ground, put it in their car and started driving around on it, it takes time to invent the technology to replace fossil fuel. The steam engine was not very efficient, nor is the petrol.
Where do we go next? Electric cars have to overcome their own weight and limited distance, not to mention that the cost is around $100K for each new model, vs ethanol enriched fuel being added to your old car’s gas today. The real replacement has to overcome friction, which right now is still using grease from fossil fuels.

@ realist:

Absolutely. I am sick of reading all of the same old arguments that ethanol is a terrible idea, will never work, is net energy negative, etc. Just as you said, these things take time to develop – There will be problems in the beginning, but where there is money to be made, the market will find a way make it in the most efficient manner possible. Farmers will find a way to increase yields, ethanol producers will find ways to extract more ethanol from the crop, and auto makers will begin churning out high octane engines to take advantage of ethanol’s 113 octane rating. In two years, we’ll all be running on 10% ethanol. When cellulosic ethanol becomes economically viable, the real boom will begin. I don’t know where the author got his information, but ethanol produced from switchgrass contains 10 times the energy needed to produce it. And that’s today, before the 70 years of technological advancements that gasoline has. It’s obvious that oil is nonrenewable, and eventually, it WILL run out – So why not begin planning for the future now?

i agree with the author, corn is NOT a good idea for biofuel. Without wanting to sound like a pot head hemp would be a more appropriate source of biomass fuel.

1. Hempseed oil has a complex polymer structure.

2. Hemp is a resting crop

3. Hemp grows crazy high and dense with very little effort.

4. Hemp can have from two to four growing seasons a year

5. a lot of the fiber can be left to decompose on the field returning and enhancing the soil it came from

6. hemp is naturally antibiotic and resists most pests and disease

HEMP FOR VICTORY!!!!

You’re poorly informed.

I agree, i think ethanol is a HORRIBLE thing to be producing and never should have been created and should stop producing it now! We will all be severely for this in the future! It will drive up prices on many things that have anything to do with corn whatsoever! Milk prices are already around $5.00 a gallon, and I blame it on ethanol! Milk comes from cows, and cows eat corn, so therefor higher corn prices=higher feed prices=higher milk costs! Cheese is made from milk so everything that has anything to do with cheese will go up! land prices are going up.. corn is grown on land! There will be more corn grown and less soybeans, which means less soybeans available, which means soybean products will go up in price! Prices on everything will skyrocket! Another thing, I heard that if we used EVERY bit of corn in America, that it would only cover about 16% of our fuel needs! Then we also need corn for animal feed, our food, and it’s used to burn for heat. We cannot produce near enough corn to make ethanol anywhere near worth producing, and ethanol isn’t that much cheaper than regular gasoline. We will be spending MANY more times amount of money of food and everything then we would be saving on fuel, it’s going to kill the economy! Ethanol production uses thousands of gallons of water, it’s recycled, but still a lot of water is needed. So I think America needs to boycott ethanol all together and we need to find some other source of energy for our vehicles, how about electric?? Corn is not the answer!! The ONLY people who will benefit from this is the farmers themselves.. everyone else will SUFFER from it in the long run!

Thank you, Adam Smith.

Thank you for your coments

[...] to do something to help? Boycott ethanol. You be saving the Planet. And a whole lot of water. And that’s a good [...]

“Switchgrass grown for biofuel production produced 540 percent more energy than needed to grow, harvest and process it into cellulosic ethanol, according to estimates from a large on-farm study by researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080109110629.htm

Does anyone else see a huge moral problem with turning food into fuel for cars and such? There have been food riots now in China, Paskistan and Mexico because were driving the prices of staple foods up by developing ethanol. Whats our new motto over here? Drive a truck starve a Mexican?

I also am a HUGE believer that ethanol is a BAD way to go for this country. The amount of corn needed to produce a tank full of ethanol for a suv would feed someone for a year. How stupid are we? Lets make our food prices out of sight and less available for something that does nothing. Also if a tanker of ethanol spills and catches most fire stations dont have the right chemicals to put out the fire. It does nothing towards fixing our dependence on foreign oil. We need to develope either hydogren engines or biodiesel fuel from organic material other than food supplies. Also drill in alaska and use that oil until the alternate fuels are better perfected. Better to pay alaska for oil then the arabs that want us all dead. No good can come from ethanol and I wish people would realize this. BAD NEWS!

On average, E85 is only about 20 cents cheaper then regular gasoline. Take away the 51 cent subsidy taxpayers are handing over to ethanol producers plus the subsidies from each individual state, you will be paying more for E85. Even with crude around $100 per barrel, gasoline would be cheaper. Don’t forget about how much you will pay for anything else corn related. High fructose CORN syrup anyone?

It’s not the Kyoto greenhouse myth that’s the issue, really, so much as it is the global food shortages that we feed our gas-hog cars the food we’ve ripped from the mouths of orphans. I’d say boycott ethanol, especially corn ethanol, if it was possible for any average citizen to do so.

>>@Adam: Thanks for the comment. Don’t forget about all the animals that are >>fed by corn. Meat and milk prices are rising as well, as corn is an input in their >>production process. Ethanol production is driving up food prices across the>> board.

>>With the food shortages in the world today, and the fact that many poor >>consumers can’t buy enough food to survive due to the higher food prices, >>today’s ethanol policy is not only stupid, it’s unethical.

These are short term trends, as ethanol becomes more and more abundant in supply prices will fall. Point is all alternatives to OIL are needed and will be used.

Not sure why higher commodity prices in US is all of sudden creating food shortages around the world!! Actually it is more of Australian draught that is responsible for this in sout east asia.

The bottom line is, that we only have a small window of time to actually do something about this escalating problem with our consumption of oil as well as the high prices which are having a huge negative effect on our economy. We must take into consideration the effect our consumption is having on our enviroment and realize that this is not a debate on which alternative is more feesable to the United States and creates more wealth for a small number of people, we need to focus on the fact that the earth is turning against us…the weather is changing and there is no doubt that it’s in response to our over consumption, polluting ways, the time is now to do the right thing and make the best drastic change we can do right now, until the right technology is in place where we can feesably utilize solar power for vehicles. Solar and wind should be in place for the energy needs in terms of electricity, and sugar cane, switchgrass needs to be in place for our cars for now, because of the amount of consumption in the US will cost too much at this time, waiting for more technology at this time will call for drastic consequenses. People need to understand that nothing is perfect but if we keep debating the numbers and politics behind the dollars, we are just filibusting the inevitable, that we are going to die, why can’t we delay the inevitable for our kids sake, and their kids. Don’t go from Denial to Despair, lets do something and stop bitching, take some notes from Brazil… OUT

I think we also need to take water use, soil erosion, fertilizer use, and land area use into consideration when calculating whether ethanol from corn or any other source is worthwhile.

To understand the whole picture, I suggest that you all also look at the ACE website. Ethanol is not all bad, however; I am not so naive as to suggest there are no drawbacks to using ethanol – but this will remain true to ANYTHING that we are dependent upon.

[...] Excerpts from http://www.gimme-five.com/2007/06/ethanol-is-bad-ethanol-from-corn-is-worse [...]

[...] this is the kind of mindset that could easily lead to support for ridiculous proposals like corn ethanol or a gas tax [...]

Corn was just the start. I agree that corn isn’t the long term answer, but sometimes you have to start the easy way, and subsidize it in order to get the ultimate solution.

The next step is using our landfills of trash (at $1.00 per gallon).
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=biofuels&id=18084&a=

I run my vehicle on E85 for this reason. The more I encourage the government and business that this is a good alternative, the more they work with it.

For the record, current conversion including farming time, etc., create a 3 to 1 BTU ratio. The new plants going online will create a 9 to 1 BTU ratio.

Something else to keep in mind: If the oil companies had to compete with E85 then prices would come down.

Ethanol has been shown to require more energy to produce than it actually produces, and its environmental benefits are minimal. Large-scale production of ethanol would require huge amounts of farmland, and the fact that it is being seriously considered as an alternative fuel is simply a testament to the power of the agricultural lobby.

Very insightful thank you!

As long as the price of gasoline remains in the $2.50 – $3.00 / gallon range, there will be NO use for alternative fuels…the working man can afford these prices. If / when gasoline goes above $3.50 gallon, interest will be sparked to produce more ethanol…otherwise forget about it!

We love our “go fast, gasoline gulping” machines!