ETStudy Says Ethanol Not Worth the Energy

[Judi Lynn]

July 17, 2005 02:32 PM ETStudy Says Ethanol Not Worth the Energy

All Associated Press NewsALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Farmers, businesses and state officials are investing millions of dollars in ethanol and biofuel plants as renewable energy sources, but a new study says the alternative fuels burn more energy than they produce.

Supporters of ethanol and other biofuels contend they burn cleaner than fossil fuels, reduce U.S. dependence on oil and give farmers another market to sell their produce.
(snip)

But researchers at Cornell University and the University of California-Berkeley say it takes 29 percent more fossil energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces. For switch grass, a warm weather perennial grass found in the Great Plains and eastern North America United States, it takes 45 percent more energy and for wood, 57 percent.
(snip)

"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, the economy, or the environment," according to the study by Cornell's David Pimentel and Berkeley's Tad Patzek. They conclude the country would be better off investing in solar, wind and hydrogen energy.
(snip/...)

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?Feed=AP&Date=20050717&ID=4968340

[skids]

1. I've been saying it for ages.

Ethanol is a dead end except as a way to reduce emissions as an additive. Pork barrel politics is the only thing that has kept it alive.

What is needed is a crop that grows like a weed, producing huge amounts of cellulose, very fast, with almost no fertilizer or pesticide and very little maintenance. Then we can heat-crack that into methanol. It wouldn't hurt, either, if the crop created a useful byproduct along with the cellulose. Gee, I wonder which particular plant might fit THAT bill? (If you don't know the answer, you haven't been paying much attention.)

(That is, assuming liquid fuels are really the best "going forward" option at all.)

[Coastie for Truth]

7. Hemp -

but click on over to

[Ian David]

21. How about Kudzu?

The Amazing Story of Kudzu
History, varied uses for kudzu plants, links and references.

http://www.cptr.ua.edu/kudzu/

[Art_from_Ark]

46. Meanwhile, in Japan, the top headline of the Asahi Shimbun newspaper

(July 19, 2005) states that ethanol made from plants will be mixed with gasoline and sold starting in 2008

[Sven77]

2. i like the last line

"the country would be better off investing in solar, wind and hydrogen energy."

sounds good.

[NEOBuckeye]

10. Agreed. Solar, wind and hydrogen are far better bets.

But I think the key word behind any one of them is efficiency. We waste far too much energy right now with the mentality that there will always be an abundant supply tomorrow. But we've about tapped this planet dry of cheaply extractable oil for use in our grossly inefficient personal vehicles and unnecessarily long urban-to-suburban commutes.

We need to restructure our cities IMMEDIATELY to make them more livable and walkable again so that personal automobiles are no longer a requirement for survival. Reconstructing mass-transit networks of light-rail and high speed railways for inter-city travel must be an urgent priority, so that people will have viable alternatives to vehicles as gas prices continue to skyrocket. Trains can be powered by any number of energy resources other than petroleum, and are far more efficient than personal vehicles when it comes to moving people and materials from one location to another.

I think we also need to start looking at Organic Farming as a vital and viable alternative to Petro-Fertilizer-Driven Farming. What are we going to do about our food supply as petro-fertilizers become more expensive and eventually unavailable? Our entire crop production system is in dire need of an overhaul.

[donco6]

13. I agree. There's no point in generating more fuel

if people are just going to use more of it to drive further and further. But Americans are SO RESISTANT to changing the idea that we all deserve a Brand New House.

[Carolab]

47. But the wind, water, sun are free and the equipment lasts forever.

No money to be made there, eh?

[lumpy]

14. Better than blood

Agreed, solar, wind, hydrogen and dedication to conservation. Perhaps gas rationing, such as used during WW2, would be an alternative to over-consumptiom.

[currents]

48. Hydrogen can be made from wind and water

No pollution and no need to cut down trees to plant corn!

[glitch]

3. Crops produced solely for fuel would not be optimal. Bio-fuels as a by-

product would be foolish to ignore.

[Coastie for Truth]

8. That is the cellulose route --

see append #7 and plus hundreds of appends in the Energy and Environment Forum on various paths to fuel using sludge digestion.

[american_mutt]

4. the real answer fo r this is...

hemp of course :)

[Robert Oak]

5. what about recycle bio?

The energy has already been spent plus it's already been used for cooking or whatever. How about a "compost heap" car?

I saw the french fry car and that made sense to me since the oil
is just going to be thrown away.

[Coastie for Truth]

6. See the discussion at

and in the thread over in the . Also, check out

<>

Some of the stuff in the MSM is obsolete before it hits the MSM or the web.

Bio-fuels of all kinds (vegetable oils, ethanol from corn, ethanol for starches and mucilage, bio-fuels from various "sludges" and meat packing wastes, etc. etc. etc.) are moving so fast that was a "rule of thumb" for "back of the envelope" calculations yesterday - is obsolete today.

Every entrepreneurial PhD candidate and professor ....

[glitch]

9. Excellent! Thanks for posting. nt

[lumpy]

15. Excellent indeed

This consumer-society is so lazy about wastefull usage. Unless there is beaucoup money to be made, corporations are prone to ignore the possibilities of using alternate fuels.

[yurbud]

27. someone should check to see who funded this study

One of my students found out that Cornell got a satellite Campus in Abu Dhabi after a researcher there wrote several papers saying that it took too much energy to make alcohol from grain--something we have been doing for millenia. The student was farmer, so he immediately recognized that the cost figures for farming an acre of land were ridiculously inflated, and when he contacted the researcher, he had no good explanation.

Oil companies have a vested interest in keeping us hooked on their product by denigrating alternatives.

I would like to see primarily solar and wind based solutions, but biofuels could get us over the hump until fuel cells come online, and they can be run in existing cars with some modifications.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[Coastie for Truth]

32. There are two studies allegedly showing that hybrids are a waste of money

One, at Carnegie Mellon (Lester Lave) - was funded by General Motors and relies on "Confidential and Proprietary" marketing studies by GM.

The other one, at Penn State (Andy Kliet) - was funded by Exxon Mobil - and also relies on the same "Confidential and Proprietary" marketing studies by GM.

These "Confidential and Proprietary" marketing studies by GM were cited by Lavie and Kliet for the proposition, that the higher your MPG, the more miles you will drive. So, according to the GM "Confidential and Proprietary" marketing studies, if you sell your 15 mpg SUV and get a 45 mpg Prius - you will drive at least three times as many miles - and therefore burn at least the same amount of gas (or maybe more, because the Prius is more fun to drive ;) )

:shrug:

That's GM's twisted logic --- which is why they are at "Junk Bond" status - and still selling "Your Father's Buick."

:dunce:

[Psephos]

33. You're right to look at who funds the studies

One of the most important habits one can develop when trying to evaluate the value of a piece of research.

However, my Saturn respectfully disagrees about your last line. She is about as far from my father's Oldsmobile as one can imagine. Really, a nice car, and she gets 38 mpg.

The main reason GM is at junk-bond status is because they are carrying massive retirement and medical obligations, not only for workers and their families, but for millions of retirees as well.

Trust me, because I come from an autoworker family - the medical coverage is as good as it gets. NO COPAY for anything, full choice on doctors and facilities.

The figures I've read say the current cost of these benefits adds about $1600 to each car made, and that is going up a lot higher soon. GM (and other US automakers) have a major cost disadvantage compared to Asian carmakers because the foreign companies have lower total labor costs and far lower total benefits costs.

One more thing. GM spent half a billion trying to develop an electric car, but couldn't find a battery technology that would deliver enough mileage. I think they should get some credit for doing this. Maybe they are an Evil Corporation(tm) but they fed my family and then some for several generations.

Peace.

[Coastie for Truth]

37. I have good and bad impressions about GM

My college was partially funded by GM (National Merit Scholarship + Fisher Body Craftsmen's Guild); I worked for a first tier vendor on the Electric Vehicle.

My dad only had Oldsmobiles from 1927 until he died in 2002.

I am still a GM shareholder.

I am very much aware of the UAW health care program -- we "piggybacked" onto it - our collective bargaining agreement was cloned from the UAW-Ford agreement.

BTW - my son is a SPARTAN engineering grad and I was affiliated with Lawrence Tech for many years

My complaint is not with the people - but with Squeaky Smith and Wagoner and Luntz. (I know both Loyd Reuss and Bob Stemple personally, and hold them both in the highest regard).

[Psephos]

40. Excellent reply

I'm with you. Mixed feelings, strong on both sides. There's always temptation to treat these issues monolithically, but there are always complexities that mere rhetoric can not appreciate.

You're right on the money about Smith and Wagoner, and Lutz was no man for the job, either.

Congrats on your son. :-) My nephew went through MSU engineering, too.

Peace.

[patcox2]

35. Probably right, with cause and effect backward.

Its not that people will buy a hybrid and then start driving three times as much. Its that people who have to dirve more will have the motivation to buy a hybrid.

[Coastie for Truth]

38. But will the individual driver change his/her driving habits

when they buy a hybrid? Or is it that hybrids appeal to people who drive more to begin with.

We are a bizzaro family - after we bought a hybrid our total miles dropped by 30%-40% (I changed jobs ;) )

[yurbud]

39. wow--that's really stupid and transparent. When would we drive more?

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[Catchawave]

11. I have a question for the researchers?

Who funded your studies? I wish this fact was included in all these articles. Usually university based studies are dependent on grants or fed money.

[OKthatsIT]

12. They conclude the country would be better off investing in solar, wind and

Check out these guys:

http://www.nanosolar.com/

[lumpy]

16. Thanks for the post

Enlightening

[merwin]

17. Go biodiesel. Very efficient, clean, natural.

You can even turn your leftovers from chinese food into fuel:
http://www.greasecar.com

[patcox2]

36. Parasite technology.

Its not efficient and only works so long as a tiny fraction of people use it. There's only so much french fry oil out there. Sure its good, every drop of biodeiesel burned means a drop of diesel not burned, thats good, but if you simply replaced the petroleum economy with a biodiesel economy, well, it'd be an uglier world than it is now.

[merwin]

42. You don't need to use JUST grease. Pretty much any type of grown

oil will work as well. Grow your own gas. That would also boost our farming economy somewhat.

[Demeter]

18. The Only Value for Ethanol Is As A Gasoline Replacement

to enable society to transition to some alternative energy source for transportation. Much as we wish it, electric cars won't do it, biodiesel requires a massive fleet transformation, and fuel cells are a dream.

[Massacure]

24. Biodiesel doesn't need a fleet transformation.

Diesel engines are straitforward to use, even in small cars. The economics of it would work itself out as gasoline prices rise.

[Strelnikov_]

19. This Report Appears To Be An Outlier

Most studies indicate an EPR of 1.3 to 1.8 for corn ethanol. Considering that 2/3rd’s of the energy is needed for conversion, this indicates opportunities for utilizing co-generation or renewables (wind) for some of this process energy. In addition, remember that most of the feed value of the grain remains after processing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4081752#4082876

So, will corn ethanol be a important part of the energy future? Without a doubt, along with sorghum ethanol, cane ethanol, (insert sugar source here) ethanol, soy biodiesel, rapeseed biodiesel, (insert plant oil source here) biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol (if it pans out), wind, distributed solar, concentrated solar, tidal, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, and the non-renewables on the depletion leg, coal, natural gas and petroleum.

Notice I left out hydrogen. While all of the above are proven ‘technologies’, unless some major technology breakthrough occurs, hydrogen will not be competitive with ethanol and plant oils as an energy carrier. Studies indicate it is not even competitive with current battery technology.

The problem is, though, that all of the above sources are not going to maintain our current lifestyle. Massive conservation measures and restructuring of the economy will be required. Energy is about to become our limiting ‘nutrient’.

[donco6]

43. I wonder, using their methodology, what the EPR would

be for gasoline? It seems to be a pretty energy intensive process as well, when you consider pulling it out of the ground, transporting it across the planet, refining it, transporting again to dispensing stations.

hmmm.

[Gregorian]

20. Folks, combustion is the problem. It HEATS the planet.

Look, I've been saying this for decades now- We're basically fucked because of the number of users. So unless we find ways to make our energy that don't include combustion, we are going to be swimming soon. It's really about breeding. But since we're here now, it's going to be about combustion. Bottom line- life is going either have to slow down, or we will have to use our money to buy research instead of bombs.

[Ian David]

22. I guess we could just bomb the brown people before they use all the gas

Seems to be current policy, anyway.

[Endangered Specie]

23. Once again, if you want reliable energy that is

reasonably clean and safe, Nuclear Power is one of the best answers.

[The_Casual_Observer]

26. As long as the fuel is processed using hydroelectric power

otherwise, forget it.

[Fovea]

25. A few ideas

1. stop thinking of a magick bullet. the solution is likely more local and diverse than we like to consider. After all, one effect of this is to increase transportation costs of materials. Think locally has never been a smarter phrase than now.

2. stop living in wooden boxes, get thermal mass and passive solar doing the work that fossil fuel is doing either directly, or indirectly. Stop building towers of steel, glass, and concrete. Start building downward and inward, using natural topography, not abusing it.

3. Stop thinking of private self powering vehicles for all transportation needs. Most of our trips could be handled by human power, if we started actually designing communities.

4. So many our our attempts to solve the energy crisis are still about powering the same old box. Time to think outside the box.

[Ian David]

29. My thoughts and ideas

1. Agreed.

2. Agreed, except I don't like the idea of living or working underground. Yes, I have seen documentaries with beautiful underground facilities, but it still creeps me out. But I'm sure the Goth kids would love it.

3. I don't want to drive to work on human power. Human power gets me all sweaty and yucky. And you can't really drink coffee and read the blogs on your palmpilot if you're busy peddling your heart out.

4. Agreed. Here's my "Master Plan."


My plan:

1) More hybrid cars, but unlike the ones today, they should rely more on the electric motor and less on the gasoline motor, and accept external charging. They should have thin-film solar panels on the roof for supplemental electricity. Homes that do not already have solar panels should at least have a solar-powered car-charging station.

2) More mass-transit! Build extra "satellite" parking in far-flung lots with bus service to main stations. Offer free bus transfers to all train passengers. Offer free shuttle vans to pre-paid monthly commuters based on their pre-arranged needs.

3) Cross-country underground MagLev trains inside vacuum tubes. You can make it from New York to Los Angeles in something like 90 minutes. MagLev can also be converted to Railgun for launching payloads into orbit. You could use Magnetic Railguns to put a satellite into orbit, or to send Fedex packages from New York to Tokyo in a couple hours.

4) Most major highways should have a corresponding mass-transit system that runs parallel (or underneath) it. Virtually every exit should have a corresponding station or embarkation/debarkation point with shuttle or bus service.

5) Pebble-bed nuclear fission reactors.

6) We should continue to pursue nuclear fusion technology. However, we should still build non-productive fusion reactors for the purpose of reducing nuclear and other waste into plasma. In other words, we can use nuclear fusion reactors as the most thorough and environmentally friendly trash incinerators ever. They can even be used to incinerate the shielding material from other fusion reactors when that material becomes to brittle for use.

7) Hydroelectric power isn't a free ride. It has a huge environmental impact. Examine ways to see if tidal energy has less impact than hydroelectric.

8) Hydrogen power good. Use wind and solar power to fraction seawater. But will leaked Hydrogen make it all the way to the Ozone Layer to react with O3?

9) Can we really use wind power without killing birds and bats? Should we abandon-- or just change-- large-scale wind farms? Would residential or community wind turbines be a better choice?

10) Which is more efficient and has less environmental impact-- large scale solar farms, or single-building systems?

11) Can de-commissioned nuclear plants be used to sterilize sewage waste without making it radioactive?

12) Phase-out of incandescent lightbulbs (except for certain applications) to be replaced by fluorescents, halogen (in certain applications) and LEDs. For example, Halogen bulbs will probably be necessary for outdoor floodlights and movie/film production for a long time to come.

See also:

Swiss capital Bern mulls Swissmetro underground maglev pilot – Geneva’s interest
http://www.geneva.ch/SMBern.htm
Sub-Urban Renewal

Thanks to new tunneling technologies, real estate trends are down. Way down.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.04/suburb.html

[fortyfeetunder]

28. Need a complete societal change

The US society and infrastructure is, unfortunately, petrochemical based. The only way we can wean ourselves from petrochemical dependency is to revamp our infrastructure and the way we do business and conduct our lives. That's the bitter medicine.

:sarcasm: Ethanol was meant for drinkin' , not puttin' into a gas tank!

[Ian David]

30. If only we could do both...

Drink it and then pee into the fuel tank to power the car.

[fortyfeetunder]

44. Ammoniated fuel technology

The person who can do that will become a zillionaire....bigger than Bill Gates!

[ecoalex]

31. This is bullshit, read this, so doable, and an energy surplus not deficet

Know how easy, and fast hybrid poplar trees grow?Drought resistant, no fertilizer, and a good use for marginal land, and over $300/acre profit for the farmer. Growing a crop using energy to grow energy is bullshit, hybrid poplar trees do fit the bill.
http://www.motherearthnews.com/library/1980_July_August/Hybrid_Poplars

[htuttle]

34. It's true -- if you make ethanol using 'Monstanto PetroCorn '

But what kind of idiot would do that? Oh, the kind of idiot who works as a researcher at Cornell and UC Berkely, I guess.

There are many other crops that can be used to produce ethanol that still provide productive yields without the addition of vast amounts of petro-fertilizer and pesticide. Corn is about the WORST crop to use for ethanol, given the food and water-hungry nature of the modern corn plant.

In addition, ethanol from cellulose opens a whole new set of possibilities we haven't even explored yet.

I have no argument with investing in solar and wind, but why are these so-called 'researchers' talking about 'hydrogen energy'? Hydrogen is not a source of energy -- it's an extrememly finicky and hard to handle 'store' for energy produced elsewhere. Unless they plan on going to Jupiter or Saturn to 'mine' the hydrogen, I suppose...but that would be just a bit inefficient.

[Ian David]

45. Maybe we can engineer bacteria to liberate hydrogen

Or grow yeast that convert cellulose to ethanol.

Here's my idea for creating World Peace:

Genetically engineer a strain of e. colli that excrete THC and can out-compete the ones already living in people's colons.

Everyone would be too stoned to make war.

And there would be more jobs, because it would take at least two stoned people to do the work that one sober person used to do.

[Nostradamus]

41. 26% of fuel in Brazil is from sugar cane

About a third of the fuel Brazilians use in their vehicles is ethanol, known in Brazil as "alcohol." That compares with 3 percent in the United States. All gasoline sold in Brazil contains at least 26 percent ethanol, but motorists driving flexible-fuel cars have the option of filling up with pure ethanol, or E100, which currently is selling for about half the price of the blend.

Use of pure ethanol will rise sharply as carmakers in Brazil such as General Motors and Volkswagen make more flexible-fuel cars. Half the new vehicles sold this year will be able to use either pure ethanol or the blend, according to the Sao Paulo Sugar Cane Industry Union.

In the United States, the sugar-cane industry has had little incentive to diversify into ethanol production because import quotas support U.S. sugar prices far above world levels. Expansion of sugar cane acreage beyond Hawaii, Florida and the Gulf Coast is limited by the need for a long, frost-free growing season. The House-passed energy bill would authorize a three-year demonstration program for producing ethanol from sugar cane.

Most U.S.-produced ethanol is now made from ground corn in a process that has been faulted as inefficient. Corn yields less sugar per acre than sugar cane, and the refining uses substantial amounts of energy. To keep ethanol competitive with gasoline, major refiners such as Archer Daniels Midland Co. have relied since the 1970s on a tax subsidy, now 51 cents a gallon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061701440.html

[leQ]

49. a local editorial on the subject was printed today in the paper

http://www.globegazette.com/articles/2005/07/22/opinion/doc42e05c622cb3d188210706.txt