We use 13% of US corn production for 3% of US fuel consumption

[NickB79]

I was listening to a presentation on Minnesota Public Radio a week ago about progress in renewable fuel production, and the speaker stated that 14% of our corn crop is used for ethanol production. I was stunned by this number, but found that it is supported by the National Corn Growers Association:

http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/main/killing_myths.asp

1.4 billion bushels of corn at 2.8 gallons per bushel is 3.9 billion gallons of ethanol per year.

The other figure I've heard quite frequently on the EE forum here is that the US uses approximately 140 billion gallons of gasoline per year. Again, this is true:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html

382.4 million gallons per day of gasoline x 365 days per year is 139.6 billion gallons per year.

Less than 3% of our fuel is supplied by ethanol. That to me is a stunning number, as it means that even if we triple the amount of ethanol we produce (and use up 40% of our corn crop annually producing it) we will still be light-years away from energy independence, much less be capable of coping with the oil shocks we will experience in the next few years as Peak Oil sets in.

[Clarkie1]

1. We have to reduce consumption.

If we are serious about energy independence, fuel efficiency standards must be radically increased, along with a full commitment to alternative as well as nuclear power.

If we are serious.

[NNadir]

23. You are serious.

It's good to see someone who is serious around here.

[Dead_Parrot]

2. Not good...

That suggests <25% maximum replacement. Equivalent figures for switchgrass/sugar crops might be better, though.

[Flabbergasted]

3. Well if we went without corn on the cob, Cream of Corn, Canned Corn,

Corn Soup, Fried Corn, Sauteed Corn, Corn Chowder and corn with shrimp we'd make up like 25%.:crazy:

[LiberalVoice]

5. Dont take away my corn! nt

[Flabbergasted]

16. We all got to make sacrifices

:hippie: :hippie:

Richard Clarke came up with "They hate us for our freedoms," Line.

[1620rock]

4. Lots of folks around here now heat with corn burning stoves. n/t

[FloridaPat]

6. Takes about 10 pounds of corn to produce a pound of beef.

How long would it take you to eat 10 pounds of corn? I love corn. I would eat the 1 pound of beef much faster. The corn would last a few days.

[Dead_Parrot]

8. I never understood that...

I'm from the UK, where cows eat grass. I now live in NZ, where cows eat grass. Cows like grass. What's with the corn? :shrug:

[NickB79]

13. It fattens them up faster for factory farming

I grew up on a farm, and almost all of the time our cattle did graze on grass (or many bales of hay during the winter). We would give each one ~2 lb of feed per day in winter (less in summer), made up of a mixture of ground corn, ground soybeans, ground oats and various vitamins, minerals and antibiotics. We also fed them silage from the silo, which was nothing more than entire corn plants chopped up leaf, stalk and all and stored in a 70-ft tall silo.

Modern cattle factory farming is set up where cattle are raised to 10-12 months in pasture by smaller farmers like my dad's, then sold to feedlots where they're fed massive amounts of soybean and corn-laden feed daily to bulk them up as fast as possible to maximize profits. You buy them cheap when they're younger, fatten them on cheap feed, and make a tidy profit when they're shipped to slaughter.

[Dead_Parrot]

14. Christ, who'd eat that?

Oh.

[xray s]

7. You don't need to use corn to produce ethanol!!!

Many other forms of biomass will do, some that have very low input cost to produce. Industrial hemp, for example.

Henry Ford made ethanol from hemp grown on his farm to power his Model T.

[Ready4Change]

11. Corn is far from the most efficient crop for fuel.

.

[Oerdin]

24. Wrong

Sugar cane has more sugar and thus is a more efficent crop for producing alcohol.

[Ready4Change]

25. Agreed

I was saying that corn is NOT the best choice. (I think that's how my post reads?)

Sugar cane, in regions where it can grow well, is good, as you point out. I suppose in colder climates, corn may be better than sugar cane simply because it's too cold to grow cane.

But further, ethanol may not be the best final fuel result. Biodiesel fuels work also, and can be derived from other crops. There was a recent study that looked at using algae ponds for this. Not only was it VERY productive, but the ponds did best when fed waste products from many sources, such as human wastes from cities or animal wastes from farms. The study indicated we could meet our ground transportation needs by converting a surprisingly small fraction of our current croplands.

Link:

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

[NickB79]

15. There are multiple issues biomass faces

We face problems of rising costs of synthetic fertilizers as natural gas runs out, increased droughts brought about by global warming, falling water tables as aquifers are pumped faster than they can be replenished and increased costs of diesel fuel for tractors.

Even if we were to produce a crop that yielded several times what corn yields per acre, we would still only be producing a fraction of the fuel we currently use. Only by cutting our fuel consumption by 40-50% does crop-based ethanol appear to be feasible.

[rfkrfk]

22. liquid fuel energy gain of ethanol is more that ten to one.

what do you expect?

other 'fuel' can be , solar, otherwise wasted steam,
various residue, off-peak electricity, etc

link
http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/PDF/03_28_05ArgonneNatlLabEthanolStudy.pdf#search='ethanol%20btu'

[NickB79]

26. I thought the EROEI was 1.67?

That number was widely posted here a month ago.

[rfkrfk]

9. only the starch is used

politicians who oppose ethanol
will be roadkill

every car enthusiast wants a E85 pump nearby

other crops can be used in other countries

[JohnWxy]

29. This is an important point.. People who express concerns over food supply

Should know that the protein content is not used to make ethanol. IT is recovered and is used to make feed supplement for cattle. The corn used to make ethanol is feed lot corn - not suitable for humans.-, never was part of the food supply (well, except to feed cattle which become hamburgers or produce milk).

[CompostGal]

10. Do you know this report? Ethanol production uses more energy than it makes

Good to have this discussion. Have you seen the ADM ad about Ethanol? A huge subject here!
to get some graphics do a search for this article or Pimental name or Ethanol. Lots there. CG




HUBBERT CENTER NEWSLETTER # 98/2

ENERGY AND DOLLAR COSTS OF ETHANOL PRODUCTION WITH CORN
By
David Pimentel
Introduction
Ethanol does not provide energy security for the future. It is not a renewable energy source, is costly in terms of production and subsidies, and its production causes serious environmental degradation (ERAB, 1980, 1981; Dorving, 1988; GAO, 1990; Pimentel, 1991; Sparks Commodities, 1990; Giampietro et al., 1997).
Clearly, conclusions drawn about the benefits and costs of ethanol production will be incomplete or misleading if only a part of the total system is assessed (Giampietro et al., 1997). The objective of this analysis is to update and assess all the recognized factors that operate in the entire ethanol production system. These include direct and indirect costs in terms of fossil energy and dollars expended in producing the corn feedstock as well as in the fermentation and distillation processes.
Energy Balance
The conversion of corn and some other food/feed crops into ethanol by fermentation is a well known and established technology. In a large and efficient plant with economies of scale, the yield from a bushel of corn is about 2.5 gallons of ethanol.
The production of corn in the United States requires significant energy and dollar inputs. Indeed, growing corn is a major energy and dollar cost of producing ethanol (Pimentel, 1991; Giampietro et al., 1997). For example, to produce an average of 120 bushels of corn per acre using conventional production technology requires more than 140 gallons of gasoline equivalents and costs about $280 (Pimentel, 1992). The major energy inputs in U.S. corn production are oil, natural gas, and/or other high grade fuels. Fertilizer production and fuels for mechanization account for about two-thirds of these energy inputs for corn production (Pimentel, 1991).
HC#98/2-1-1
April 1998
Once corn is harvested, three additional energy expenditures contribute to the total costs in the conversion process. These include energy to transport the corn material to the ethanol
plant, energy expended relating to capital equipment requirements for the plant, and energy expended in the plant operations for the fermentation and distillation processes.
The average costs in terms of energy and dollars for a large modern ethanol plant (60-70 million gallon/yr) are listed in Table 1. The largest energy inputs are for corn production and fuel energy expended in the fermentation/distillation process. The total energy input to produce one gallon of ethanol is 129,600 BTU. However, one gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 76,000 BTU. Thus, a net energy loss of 53,600 BTU occurs for each gallon of ethanol produced. Put another way, about 71% more energy is required to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy that is contained in a gallon of ethanol (Table 1).
About 63% of the cost of producing ethanol ($2.52 per gallon) in a large plant is for the corn feedstock itself (Table 1). This cost is offset, in part, by the by-product (dried-distillers grain) which is produced and can be fed to livestock. However, most of the cost contributions from by-products are negated by the costs of environmental pollution that result from the production processes. These are estimated to be $0.36 per gallon of ethanol produced (Pimentel, 1991; Giampietro et al., 1997). This shows that the environmental system in which corn is being produced is rapidly being degraded. Furthermore, it substantiates the finding that the U.S. corn production system is not sustainable unless major changes are made in the cultivation of this important food/feed crop. Hence, corn cannot be considered a renewable resource.
Energy Inputs in Ethanol Production
About 1 billion gallons of ethanol are currently produced in the United States each year (Peterson et al., 1995). This quantity of ethanol provides less than 1% of the fuel utilized by U.S. automobiles (USBC, 1996).
The amount of cropland that is required to grow sufficient corn to fuel each automobile is a vital factor when considering the advisability of producing ethanol for automobiles. To clarify this problem, the amount of cropland needed to fuel one automobile with ethanol was calculated. An average U.S. car travels about 10,000 miles per year and uses about 520 gallons of gasoline. Although 120 bushels per acre of corn yield 300 gallons of ethanol, its energy equivalent to gasoline is only 190 gallons because ethanol has a much lower BTU content than gasoline (76,000 BTU versus 120,000 BTU for gasoline per gallon). As shown above, there is a significant net energy loss in producing ethanol. However, even assuming zero or no energy charge for the fermentation and distillation processes and charging only for the energy required to produce corn (Table 1), the net ethanol energy yield from one acre of corn is only 50 gallons (190 gallons minus 140 gallons). Therefore, to provide the equivalent of 520 gallons of gasoline per car, about 10.4 acres of corn must be grown to fuel one car with ethanol for one year.
Land Used in Ethanol Production
To fuel one car with ethanol for one year means that nearly 7-times more cropland would be required to fuel one car than is needed to feed one American (USDA, 1996).
Assuming a net production of 50 gallons of fuel per acre of corn, and assuming that all cars in the United States were fueled with ethanol, a total of approximately 2 billion acres of cropland would be required to provide the corn feedstock. This amount of acreage is more than 5-times all the cropland that is actually and potentially available for all crops in the future in the United States.
A major problem associated with corn production is soil erosion. In U.S. corn production, soil erodes about 20-times faster than soil can be reformed (Pimentel et al., 1995). As soil quality diminishes, production moves to marginal land which increases the susceptibility of the corn crop to climate fluctuations, particularly droughts. For example, during 1988 a drought reduced the corn crop by about 30% (USDA, 1989). These severe fluctuations in corn production occur periodically every 4 to 5 years. Additionally, in irrigated corn acreage, groundwater is being mined 25% faster than the recharge rate (USWRC, 1979).
These land and water problems already demonstrate that the U.S. corn production system uses large quantities of basic resources. Unless major changes can be made in the cultivation of this major food/feed crop it cannot be considered a renewable resource that can be relied on to provide energy security for the United States.
Environmental Impacts
Ethanol production, in both the growing of the corn and in the fermentation / distillation process, adversely affects the quality of the environment in diverse ways. All these environmental problems cost the consumer and the nation, and most importantly, diminish the long term sustainability of U.S. agriculture and environmental integrity.
As mentioned, corn is one of the major row crops now responsible for serious soil erosion in the United States. Estimates are that about 9 tons of soil per acre are eroded per year by rain and wind in corn production areas (Lal and Pierce, 1991). Note, this rate of soil loss is about 20-times faster than soil reformation in agriculture (Lal and Stewart, 1990; Pimentel et al., 1995). To replace soil nutrients that are lost as soil erodes, an estimated $20 billion per year is required (Troeh et al., 1991).
In addition to being the largest user of fertilizers among all U.S. crops, corn production also is the largest user of insecticides and herbicides (Pimentel, 1997). Unfortunately, substantial amounts of these chemicals are washed and/or drift from the target areas to contaminate adjoining terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Monitoring for fertilizer and pesticide pollution in U.S. well water and groundwater is estimated to cost the nation $2 billion per year-- if an adequate job of monitoring were done-- of which $1.2 billion would be expended just for pesticides (Nielsen and Lee, 1987). Other environmental damages caused by pesticides are estimated to cost the nation more than $8 billion per year (Pimentel, 1997). Although these may be necessary expenditures for food production, their impact must be considered when evaluating the environmental effects of producing ethanol fuels.
Furthermore, major pollution problems also are associated with the production of ethanol in the conversion plant. For each gallon of corn ethanol produced, about 160 gallons of waste water are produced. This waste water has a biological oxygen demand (BOD) of 18,000-37,000
mg/liter depending on the type of plant. If the cost of processing this sewage is included in the pollution cost of $0.36 per gallon, it would add another $0.06 per gallon and the total pollution costs per gallon would be $0.42.
Ethanol produces less carbon monoxide than gasoline, but it produces just as much nitrous oxides as gasoline. In addition, ethanol adds aldehydes and alcohol to the atmosphere, all of which are carcinogenic. When all air pollutants associated with the entire ethanol system are measured, ethanol production is found to contribute to major air pollution problems. The 129,600 BTU of fossil fuel including coal, oil, and natural gas, which are expended in corn production and subsequently burned in the ethanol plant release significant amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere. Also, the carbon dioxide emissions released from burning these fossil fuels contribute to the global warming problem (Parry, 1990). This becomes an extremely serious concern when coal is used as the fuel for the fermentation/distillation processes. Thus, overall environmental pollution and its costs associated with ethanol production will increase if ethanol production is expanded.
Food Versus Fuel Issues
Burning a human-food resource (corn) for fuel, as happens when ethanol is produced, raises important ethical and moral issues. Today the number of malnourished people in the world stands at more than 2 billion, about one-third of the world's population (WHO, 1995). This is the largest number of malnourished people in human history, and the number is growing. Coupled with this existing problem is the escalating rate of growth in the human population. More than a quarter of a million people are added each day to the world population, and each of these human beings requires adequate food. World data confirm that per capita food supplies have been declining for the past 12 years (FAO, 1996; Pimentel et al., 1997).
Present food shortages throughout the world call attention to the importance of continuing U.S. exports of corn and other grains for human food to reduce malnutrition and starvation. Increased corn exports increase the market for corn, improve the U.S. balance of payments, and most importantly help feed people who need additional food for their survival. Present U.S. grain exports total about $40 billion per year (USBC, 1996). Clearly using corn for food is beneficial for many reasons.
Agricultural land supplies more than 99% of all world food while the oceans supply less than 1% (FAO, 1991). Expanding ethanol production could entail diverting essential cropland from producing corn needed to sustain human life to producing corn for ethanol factories. This will create serious practical as well as ethical problems. Already worldwide (including the United States) per capita supplies of cropland and fresh water are declining, while soil erosion, deforestation, and food losses to pests are increasing. All these factors are contributing to food shortages throughout the world. Therefore, the practical aspects as well as the moral and ethical issues must be seriously considered before steps are taken to produce and convert more corn into ethanol. Clearly the ethical issue of burning corn will become more intense as human food supplies must be augmented to meet the basic needs of the rapidly growing world population.
Subsidies
A recent report by the U.S. General Accounting Office which analyzed tax costs and federal farm program expenditures associated with projected increased ethanol production has added to our understanding of the complexities of ethanol production. The 1990 report concluded that: (1) increasing ethanol production would greatly increase tax-subsidy expenditures; (2) no projections could be made concerning any net federal budget savings from increasing ethanol production; and (3) an estimate of any overall federal budget impact was precluded because of the uncertainties about production economics for both ethanol and gasoline (GAO, 1990). In addition the report indicated that it was impossible to calculate how much higher the subsidies might have to be increased to encourage a measured expansion of ethanol production, if the expansion were needed at all.
Conclusion
Ethanol production is wasteful of fossil energy resources and does not increase energy security. This is because considerably more energy, much of it high-grade fossil fuels, is required to produce ethanol than is available in the ethanol output. Specifically, about 71% more energy is used to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy contained in a gallon of ethanol.
Furthermore, ethanol production from corn cannot be considered renewable energy. Its production uses more nonrenewable fossil energy resources both in the production of the corn and in the fermentation/distillation processes than is produced as ethanol energy.
Unfortunately ethanol produced from corn and other food crops is an unreliable source of energy because of uncontrollable climatic fluctuations, particularly droughts which frequently reduce crop yields. The expected priority for corn and other food crops would be for food and feed.
Increasing ethanol production will increase degradation of vital agricultural land and water resources and will seriously contribute to the pollution of the environment. In U.S. corn production, soil erodes some 20-times faster than soil is reformed.
If there were no tax payer money paid to subsidize the ethanol production industry, there would be no ethanol produced as a fuel for automobiles.
Increasing the diversion of human food resources to support the costly and inefficient production of ethanol fuel raises major ethical questions. This is especially true when there are more than two billion humans who are malnourished in the world.
TABLE 1
Energy and dollar inputs for a gallon of ethanol
(Pimentel, 1991, 1992; USBC, 1996; USDA, 1996; Giampietro et al., 1997).
Inputs BTU Dollars
Corn Production 55,300 $1.60
Fermentation/Distillation 74,300 $0.92
TOTAL 129,600 $2.52
References
1. Dorving, F. 1988. Farming for Fuel. New York: Praeger.
2. ERAB. 1980. Gasohol. Washington, DC: Energy Research Advisory Board, U.S. Department of Energy.
3. ERAB. 1981. Biomass Energy. Washington, DC: Energy Research Advisory Board, U.S. Department of Energy.
4. FAO. 1991. Food Balance Sheets. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
5. FAO. 1996. Quarterly Bulletin of Statistics. FAO Quarterly Bulletin of Statistics 9: 1-121.
6. GAO. 1990. Alcohol Fuels. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO/RCED-90-156.
7. Giampietro, M., S. Ulgiati, and D. Pimentel. 1997. Feasibility of large-scale biofuel production. BioScience 47 (9): 587-600.
8. Lal, R. and B.A. Stewart. 1990. Soil Degradation. New York: Springer-Verlag.
9. Lal, R. and F.J. Pierce. 1991. Soil Management for Sustainability. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Soc. in Coop. with World Assoc. of Soil and Water Conservation and Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer.
10. Nielson, E.G. and L.K. Lee. 1987. The Magnitude and Costs of Groundwater Contamination from Agricultural Chemicals. U.S. Dept. of Agr., Econ. Res. Ser., Nat., Res. Econ. Div., Staff. Re., AGES 870318.
11. Parry, M. 1990. Climate Change and World Agriculture. London: Earthscan Publications, Ltd.
12. Peterson, C.L., M.E. Casada, L.M. Safley, and J.D. Broder. 1995. Potential production of agriculturally produced fuels. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 11(6): 767-772.
13. Pimentel, D. 1991. Ethanol fuels: Energy security, economics, and the environment. J. Agr. Environ. Ethics 4: 1-13.
14. Pimentel, D. 1992. Energy inputs in production agriculture. In Energy in World Agriculture, ed. R.C. Fluck. pp. 13-29. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
15. Pimentel, D. 1997. Techniques for Reducing Pesticides: Environmental and Economic Benefits. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
16. Pimentel, D., C. Harvey, P. Resosudarmo, K. Sinclair, D. Kurz, M. McNair, S. Crist, L. Sphpritz, L. Fitton, R. Saffouri, and R. Blair. 1995. Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits. Science 267: 1117-1123.
17. Pimentel, D., X. Huang, A. Cardova, and M. Pimentel. 1997. Impact of population growth on food supplies and environment. Population and Environment 19(1): 9-14.
18. Sparks Commodities. 1990. Impacts of the Richardson Amendment to H.R. 3030 on U.S. Agricultural Sector. McLean, VA: Sparks Commodities, Inc., Washington Division.
19. Troeh, F.R, J.A Hobbs, and R.L. Donahue. 1991. Soil and Water Conservation. 2nd ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
20. USBC. 1996. Statistical Abstract of the United States. 201st ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Government Printing Office.
21. USDA. 1989. Agricultural Statistics. Washington, DC: USDA.
22. USDA. 1996. Agricultural Statistics. Washington, DC: USDA.
23. USWRC. 1979. The Nation's Water Resources. 1975-2000. Vol. 1-4. Second National Water Assessment, Washington, DC: U.S. Water Resources Council.
24. WHO. 1995. Bridging the Gaps. Geneva: World Health Organization.

The Author: David Pimentel
David Pimentel is a professor of ecology and agricultural science at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-0901. His Ph.D. is from Cornell University. His research spans the fields of energy, land and water conservation, and natural resource management. Pimentel has published more than 475 scientific papers and 20 books and has served on many national and government committees including the National Academy of Sciences; President’s Science Advisory Council; U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of Energy; U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare; Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress; and the U.S. State Department.
David Pimentel
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
Cornell University, 5126 Comstock Hall
Ithaca, New York 14853-0901
607-255-2212
607-255-0939 (fax)
[e-mail]
April 1998

[Dead_Parrot]

17. Welcome to DU, CG!

:hi:

[Dogmudgeon]

18. Ooh! Gotta cut that down a little!

Sorry to be a kvetch, but DU Rules limit copyright-protected article excerpts to four paragraphs. This is a precaution mainly against SLAPP actions (SLAPP = "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation") but there are also legitimate authors' rights that we try our best to honor. Four paragraphs and a link to the original is the accepted format. You can squeek by with five if the paragraphs are real short, in the style of tabloids.

David Pimentel's article has been posted before, and gets a lot of debate going. There has also been more recent work done on ethanol's efficiency. It's a good find.

BTW, welcome to DU!

--p!

[JohnWxy]

28. Pimentel routinely discredited by growing body of Gov & academic research

"Maybe the problem is Pimentel is an entomologist instead of an engineer," Corzine said, adding that Patzek was a longtime employee of Shell Oil Company and founder of the UC Oil Consortium, which has counted BP, Chevron USA, Mobil USA, Shell and Unocal among its members. Patzek also is a member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers"

"It's abundantly clear that both corn ethanol and cellulose ethanol displace crude oil and save liquid fuels," said Bruce Dale, professor of chemical engineering at Michigan State University. "Dr. Pimentel's net energy argument is bogus. What counts is whether we can displace imported oil, and ethanol certainly does so."

Corzine said Pimentel and Patzek are the only researchers since 1995 who have found ethanol to have a negative energy balance. In fact, the nine other energy balance studies conducted since 1995 all found net energy gains of at least 25 percent. NCGA called into question the credibility of Pimentel and Patzek.

"Maybe the problem is Pimentel is an entomologist instead of an engineer," Corzine said, adding that Patzek was a longtime employee of Shell Oil Company and founder of the UC Oil Consortium, which has counted BP, Chevron USA, Mobil USA, Shell and Unocal among its members. Patzek also is a member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, making his ethanol energy balance analysis hardly impartial, Corzine said.

"It's interesting to note that Mr. Pimentel now has ties -- direct ties -- to the petroleum industry," Corzine said. "We continue to offer the chance for debate and we continue to get no response from Mr. Pimentel. The facts are on our side and we will get the energy bill passed by the end of the month."

"Leading academics also discredited the work of Pimentel and Patzek. "In terms of finer details, Pimentel and Patzek use old data, improper data, and their methods of data analysis are wrong. For example, they don't give proper energy credits to dried distillers grain, a coproduct of ethanol production," Dale said.

"There is an internationally accepted standard method of doing such life cycle studies. Dr's. Pimentel and Patzek don't come close to meeting the standards. Their studies don't meet the International Standards Organization test of transparency -- they don't clearly state where their data comes from nor do they clearly state their assumptions. They cite themselves rather than independent sources for important data all the time. And they don't submit their work for verification in recognized, peer-reviewed life cycle journals.

"I invite Dr. Pimentel to submit and publish his work in the International Journal of Life Cycle Analysis journal as we have done with our study on ethanol net energy."

~~
~~

In June 2004, the U.S. Department of Agriculture updated its 2002 analysis of the issue and determined that the net energy balance of ethanol production is 1.67 to 1. For every 100 BTUs of energy used to make ethanol, 167 BTUs of ethanol is produced. In 2002, USDA had concluded that the ratio was 1.35 to 1. The USDA findings have been confirmed by additional studies conducted by the University of Nebraska and Argonne National Laboratory.

These figures take into account the energy required to plant, grow and harvest corn -- as well as the energy required to manufacture and to distribute ethanol.

Argonne National Laboratory Study

http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/main/energy.htm

In June 2004, the U.S. Department of Agriculture updated its 2002 analysis of the issue and determined that the net energy balance of ethanol production is 1.67 to 1. (For every 100 BTUs of energy used to make ethanol, 167 BTUs of ethanol is produced.) In 2002, USDA had concluded that the ratio was 1.35 to 1.

The USDA findings have been confirmed by additional studies conducted by the University of Nebraska and Argonne National Laboratory. In fact, since 1995, nine independent studies found ethanol has a positive net energy balance, while only one study – which used outdated data – found the energy balance to be negative.

A Michigan State University study (2002) found that ethanol produced from corn provided 56 percent more energy than is consumed during production (1.56 to 1). This study looked at producing ethanol from both dry and wet milling of corn—and included corn grain production, soybean products from soybean milling and urea production.

These studies take into account the entire life cycle of ethanol production—from the energy used to produce and transport corn to the energy used to produce ethanol to the energy used in the distribution of ethanol in gasoline.

What’s behind this continual increase in net energy balance?

Production efficiency is one factor. Compared to just five years ago, today’s ethanol plants produce 15 percent more ethanol from a bushel of corn—and using 20 percent less energy in the process.

The energy efficiency of American farmers is another reason. According to USDA statistics, U.S. agriculture uses about half the energy to produce a unit of output today than was needed to produce the same output in 1950.

UC Oil Consortium

"The UC Oil Consortium® was established at the University of California at Berkeley by Prof. T. W. Patzek in 1994. Over the years, the participants have been Aera Energy, BP, CalResources, Chevron USA, Mobil USA, Statoil, Shell Development, Shell Western E&P and Unocal."

[JohnWxy]

30. here's a post you might find illluminating

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x48327

[Oerdin]

12. I imagine

That a very large percentage of the ethanol we produce isn't used in transportation and instead is used for things like rubbing alcohol. You'd be amazed at the shear number of products which use ethanol as well as the number of industrial processes which use ethanol.

[Dogmudgeon]

19. Or fortifying booze

I can imagine the college-circuit PR campaign: Mad Dog 50/50 Goes To (The Oil) War!

Most rubbing alcohol is isopropanol, but I have seen some denatured ethanol available.

The kind of ethanol production we'd need for alt-fuel would be enormous, though. I think that a specially bred alga or bacterium might be a better choice. There are at least four species of algae that are used to produce biodiesel oil, all with very high oil production.

--p!

[Dead_Parrot]

20. Do they still make that stuff?

I always wondered (back when I was a student) if MD would run a car... Evil stuff.

Happy days. hic. :beer:

[Dogmudgeon]

21. Do they still make Mad Dog?

I'm not sure.

I'm a life-long teetotaler -- actually, I got drunk once and found out my liver doesn't process alcohol correctly. So that was the end of that.

I learned about MD 50/50 from several friends of mine I used to drive home from parties and impromptu ethanol-fueled orgies. "OhmyGOD! Does this mean I lost my virginity, or did the Mad Dog lose my virginity?"

Yep, a micro-car, two frisky kids, a bottle of MD 50/50, and the reduced lighting that will be made common by the transition to a post-Peak-Oil state of affairs won't be too hard on privacy and its rituals at all.

:evilgrin:

--p!
Mad Dog 50/50
Quick Energy, Quick Therapy, Quick Sex.
In one bottle.

[ovidsen]

31. Oh, indeed they do!

I don't drink anymore myself, doctors orders and all. And I was more into premium stuff... good California Zins, Beck's, Wild Turkey...

But a friend with rather broad tastes in beverages turned me onto this informative site.

Fine vintages all.

It's actually called MD 20/20. I don't know what the 20/20 stands for. It certainly isn't your eyesight after partaking...

[Dogmudgeon]

32. A little Mad Dog incunabula

The "Mad Dog" is an affectionate nickname for Mogen David, the importers of all manner of culinary Judaica. I used to think it was "MD 50/50" -- Mogen David 50%, Alcohol 50%; but actually the "20/20" refers to the 20% (40°) overall alcohol content it once had -- today it's 13-18% (26° to 36°).

Ergo, fortified wine.

Ah, how many of us, growing up in the 1970s, remember the enchanting and enticing aromas of our sweeties' Love's Baby Soft pedo perfume, our teenage lust temporarily slaked by Mad Dog, Boone's Farm, or the anticipation of the half-hit of blotter kicking in?

Myself, I didn't discover acid until the Punk Rock era, was unable to drink more than a sip or two of alcohol, and didn't discover the furtive joys of making out with drunk teenage girls until the Punk Rock era, either, so I'll chalk it up to a manifestation of Collective Consciousness.

For the persnickety, here's the mandatory, academically Peer Reviewed citations:

http://www.bumwine.com/md2020.html
http://fanatic.nanashi-inc.net/md2020/
http://www.webtender.com/db/ingred/81

--p!

[JohnWxy]

27. Oak Ridge National Laboratory study: Biomass could meet 1/3rd US energy

demand (for transportation).

Growth in biomass could put U.S. on road to energy independence

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory looked at the issues you raised and released a report you can view at link provided.

Their conclusion was that the U.S. could meet AT LEAST 1/3 of the energy needs for transportation using bio-mass sources (not just ethanol but also Bio-diesel).

The report states this could be accomplished:

   "with only relatively modest changes in land use and agricultural and forestry practices.".

The report also states that the benefits achieved would be:

    __ increased energy security (to me this is important) and

    __ reduction of Green House Gases. (ethanol burns cleaner than gasoline prduces less GHGs than gasoline (e.g.CO2).

REgarding the corn as an ethanol source. Yes, sugar cane, and sugar beets produce more sugars for fermentation into ethanol. Brazil uses sugar cane and is the worlds leading producer of ethanol. I don't know how feasible planting sugar cane in the midwest would be but certainly in the South-East this may be a consideration.

It's worth noting that the productivity of farmers has been going up significantlyover the last couple of decades. They have been producing more corn with LESS FERTILIZERS over the last 20 or so years. Techniques such as No-till and Low-till farming, among others, are being embraced which reduce wind and soil erosion as well as evaraporation losses (which reduces fertilizer and insecticide needs) and have lead to improved productivity. 2005 was a bumper crop year for Corn. The farmers produced so much corn the grain elevator operators topped off their elevators and started piling up tons of corn on the ground! Maybe someone with some knowledge of agri-science can further illuminate us on this issue.

Of course to expand more quickly the percentage of ethanol used, increased imports of ethanol from Brazil would seem to be a good idea. Unfortunately, we have a 54 cent per gallon tariff on imported ethanol. Seeing as how the demand for ethanol now far exceeds our current ability to produce it (ethanol plants are being built as fast as they can but it will take a few years to build enough capacity to meet the demand.) it would seem a change in this policy would be appropriate.

Personally, I feel in order to address the very imminent risk of an oil supply disruption of 5% to 10% (terrorist attacks in Saudia Arabia and anywhere else, IRAN, political variables in Venequela, political instability in NIgeria, 2006,-7,-8 hurricane seasons) importing more ethanol from Brazil would be a very good idea.

Hope this clears things up for you.