USDA: ETHANOL OUTPUT could DOUBLE by 2010

[JohnWxy]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14716258/


U.S. ethanol output could double to 10 billion gallons annually by 2010 without igniting a food-vs.-fuel fight over whether to use corn as livestock rations or making the alternative fuel, a government economist said on Wednesday.

~~
~~

--Corn acreage (area) will have to expand by 5.5 million acres by 2010, to around 90 million acres, to supply enough corn for domestic use and export.
~~
~~

--Some 4.3 million-7.2 million acres now idled in the long-term Conservation Reserve "could be used to grow corn or soybeans in a sustainable way" and expand U.S. crop output.
~~
~~

Collins and officials from the Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency said other forms of renewable energy, such as cellulosic ethanol, should be developed. A Energy Department official said 18 billion gallons was the maximum amount of corn ethanol that could be produced annually. {Note: in 2005 almost 4 Billion gallons of ethanol were produced in the U.S.__JW}


Congress has signed a bill ENDING the Cotton export subsidy (cost: $4 billion per year). IT's been Sent to Bush. Will he sign it? (THe amount of acreage planted to cotton is almost as much as the number of acres planted to corn for sale to ethanol producers). If cotton export subsidy is stopped it will no longer be profitable to raise cotton in the U.S. IF cotton farmers switched to corn (given the exploding demand for ethanol, corn would be a likely candidate for farmers) they would nearly double the amount of corn being produced for ethanol.

[xchrom]

1. note to self -- invest in corn.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Billions for Ethanol, but not one penny for Food

"We, The People" need to take control of ethanol and other biofuels, or they will become simply new ways to jerk back on the chain -- potentially causing or exacerbating mass hunger in order to chase profits.

We're starting to see the effects in other areas. The big GE wind power generators produce horrendous amounts of infrasonic noise pollution; several solar panel fabricators have "discreetly" dumped toxic waste; now that agribiz has finished its epochal land-grab and put the family farm out of business, they're set to engineer the most atrocious agricultural real estate price run-up in history.

This is not the fault of the forms of energy per se. The sunlight, the wind, even radioisotopic fission have their risks, but the dangers are largely a result of human greed and stupidity. We've seen this most poignantly with nuclear power -- a promising method of energy generation crippled by greedheaded manipulation of energy and resource markets, cheap-jack construction and engineering that gave short shrift to minimizing risk, resulting in extreme politicization of the whole process.

It's an evil ghost that currently dwells in the machine of energy generation. It will be one of the truly big political problems of the coming generation. With strong popular control, even nuclear energy will be safe; with iron-fisted corporate hegemony, the sunlight itself will be used to rob, rape, poison, and kill. And ethanol, sadly, will be produced in preference to food if that's where the money is.

Ethanol, ¡Sí!; Avidez (Greed), ¡No!

--p!

[Javaman]

3. That's nice, but what happens if the current world wide drought continues?

Then what? The new headline will read, "Ethanol production halved due to drought and global warming".

Ethanol is evil. It will limit our food output. The run off from the massive erosen it's production will cause, will kill our soil and fields.

It's a fools paradice.

[NickB79]

4. So, plowing under CRP grassland is a good thing?

"--Corn acreage (area) will have to expand by 5.5 million acres by 2010, to around 90 million acres, to supply enough corn for domestic use and export.


--Some 4.3 million-7.2 million acres now idled in the long-term Conservation Reserve "could be used to grow corn or soybeans in a sustainable way" and expand U.S. crop output."

The land left idle by CRP is vital to maintaining healthy wildlife populations. In order to double the current production of ethanol, we're going to convert millions of acres of land into monocrop, wildife deserts. On top of that, CRP land is normally marginal for crop production, hence why it is converted to CRP land in the first place. Either wetlands will have to be drained or poor soils will have to be heavily fertilized to convert this land into highly productive cornfields, at a time when fertilizer prices are skyrocketting. Wonderful.

Hey, at least we can keep driving our SUV's. What's a few critters here and there compared to my right as a US citizen to drive an E85-capable Tahoe?

[JohnWxy]

5. HOw about cotton export subsidies ending and that land if planted in corn

almost doubling ethanol production?

Or we can just spend the money for more oil from the mid-East with some of that ending up in the hands of people who are targeting us.

Deaths in IRAQ now over 2,600 with thousands injured for life.

[NickB79]

10. Have you seen what cotton does to farmland soils?

Any cotton fields converted to cornfields will require massive inputs of fertilizer to get them back up to optimum yields. Cotton is almost as fertilizer, water and pesticide-dependent as corn, so the soils they are grown in are largely depleted of natural fertility. Cotton fields are notorious for destroying soils in short order.

BTW, large areas of the Southeast that currently grow cotton are (or were for most of the summer before Hurricane Ernesto) experiencing a severe drought. Good luck maintaining corn yields in the sandy soils of the Southeast during drought conditions.

We could just increase CAFE standards a few miles per gallon and save more gasoline than all ethanol production does, but I guess Americans have the God-given right to drive Chevy Tahoe's fueled by E85.

[hunter]

12. Even better than increasing CAFE standards: Make cars optional...

... by investing in public transportation and attractive housing near people's places of work.

Soon after we were married my wife and I vowed we would never live far from our workplaces. We'd both suffered bad commutes, and we also hated the time it kept us apart. Two hours commuting every day was two hours we couldn't spend doing something else.

So far we've been pretty fortunate in our choices of jobs and homes -- neither one of us has had to commute more than ten miles since 1987. Mostly we've lived less than two miles from our work.

Personally, I'd rather not own a car if that was possible. I still enjoy driving, but if I could easily rent a car for longer trips and vacations, that would be great. I hate buying cars, I hate maintaining cars, and I hate paying for all the other crap that goes with them. I still drive the only car I ever bought, before I met my wife.

[amandabeech]

19. The southeast and the southwest are not known as great areas

for corn production. The southeast could do some sorghum, perhaps, but I don't know what ethanol crop could be raised in the southwest.

[poopfuel]

25. mesquite

pimelon, buffalo gourd, prickly pear.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

6. What is the input/outbalance for ethanol energy?

I remember some controversy about it, that it actually takes more energy to make than you get out of the fuel.

I'm sure some engineering folks have already run the numbers. Care to share the wealth?

[4dsc]

7. Wyx won't answer that question

Its a waste of food to make ethanol from corn. EROEI is 1.27 for corn based ethanol which is pathetic!!

[JohnWxy]

8. Energy balance is positive. disinformation persists on this but research

by reputable sources and institutions (MIchigan State Univ., Argonne National Laboratory - DOE, US Dept of Agriculture) confirm that the net energy balance is positive. NEt energy balnce of gasoline however, is .87 : 1 for a 19% loss. Ethanol (when you take into account the coproducts) is coming in around 1.67 to 1 (USDA). NOte that even the legitimate studies of ethanol production efficiency use industry wide averages which include quite a few older much less efficient plants. Michael Wang, ANL has recently stated that the newer facilities are turning out ethanol at better than a 1.9 to 1 ratio of energy output (in ethanol) to energy input. Some of the facilities being built now are going to employ cattle poop to generate methane which will provide energy for the ethanol production process. This reduces fossil fuel inputs to very small amounts.

The University of Iowa has recently filed for a patent for a process using ultra-sound to enhance alcohol yield from the corn by about 30%.

NOte that the use of corn, sugar cane, ssoy-beans is a transition phase till cellulosic ethanol can be produced cost effecctively in about 5 years. Bulding up production infrastructure now (for corn etc) will shorten the lead time to get cellulosic ethanol more economical as part of that equation must include production at high enough volume.


http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/reports/#Balance

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

9. Thanks for clearing that one up

I was a little confused, since I'd read about it not being positive and then I saw where Brazil had pretty much replaced gasoline with ethanol, so the negative energy balance didn't make sense.

[bhikkhu]

14. The confusion is hardly ended.

Much as I would welcome good news - from the conflicting research I have seen both sides of the argument rely on either sunny over-optimism or inflated production costs. Essentially, while this is an old technology, the predictions for increased use of ethanol, from farming practices, to transportation, refining, distribution, etc, have so many variables that one may pick and chose and arrive at whatever EROI is desired by the financiers of the research. And the politics on both sides are very much involved.

As for Brazil, by the volumes I have seen, they have replaced only about 10% of their transportation fuels with ethanol. In the process they have devastated huge swaths of forestland and caused a critical deficit in food production.

[JohnWxy]

33. The REAL research from legitimate sources consistently shows ethanol

has a postive net energy balance. I realize therre are those who will keep saying otherwise. That is the principle of "the Big LIe" - just keep repeating it and some will think "well it must be so. I mean nobody would keep repeating a bald faced lie like that. If it wasn't so." This is because most well intentioned people would be very embarrassed to be caught in a lie. But this is not the case with the disseminators of disinformation. They are just glad to have everybody's attention (even if it's for just a moment). It makes them feel important, I guess. IT's an easy, quick way to feel important - (without doing any work to earn it.)

Research from the Argonne National Laboratory (U.S. dept of Energy), Michigan State University, Colorado State University, and the Unites States Department of Agriculture all shows ethanol has a net POSITIVE energy balance. Bill Gates, Craig Virgin, Vinod Khosla are a few of some very sharp individuals who are investing heavily in ethanol. Keep in mind ethanol from corn, soy-beans, sugar cane is a transition to cellulosic ethanol which will be much more productive than corn et al at producing ethanol. But in the mean time corn based ethanol will reduce fossil fuel consumption and provide the build out of production capacity which will make cellulosic ethanol practical that much sooner.

There is no confusion regarding ethanol although there is still plenty of disinformation which does confuse many - and that's the point. Exxon Mobil spent millions over 20 to 25 years paying for disinformation on Global Warming. They (and others who financed this crap) have been successful in delaying a response to GLobal Warming for a couple of decades. Speaking more specifically about financing, one of the two committed critics of renewable fuels (other than hydrogen from fossil fuels) is Ted Patzek. He's the founder of the UC Oil Consortium, which is funded by a number of oil companies. Patzek used to be a petroleum engineer for Shell Oil. Pimentel who has made a bit of career out of writing articles critical of ethanol is a retired professor of entomology. That's the study of bugs. He now calls himself an ecologist. His 'studies' and methods have been debunked by Farrell and Kammen(Dan Kammen and Alex Farrell of the Energy and Resources Group at UC Berkeley) of the university of California, Berkeley in the Journal Science (January 2006). Most egregiously, the critics of ethanol leave out any credits for co-products (as well as using old data or data lacking documentation) produced in the ethanol production process, such as distillers grains which is sold as a feed supplement to dairy farmers.

There is no confusion as to the efficiency and importance of ethanol. That's why the production capacity is growing at about a 62% rate (the amount of capacity under construction at the end of 2005 as a percentage of the total operating capacity at that time).

[amandabeech]

21. Brazil did not replace its total oil consumption with ethanol.

Brazil does not import oil at this time because more oil was found in Brazilian land and waters. Eliminating imports was a big deal, but it wasn't done solely with ethanol.

Brazil does produce oodles of sugar cane, which grows very well there. Brazil uses quite a bit of the cane to produce ethanol which accounts for something like 20-35% of auto fuel. Brazilian sugar cane to ethanol operations run on an 8-1 energy returned on energy invested basis, which is much better than our corn-based product or the various cellulosic ethanol trials.

Ethanol has two drawbacks not usually mentioned: ethanol cannot be shipped through our oil and gas pipeline system and its use in E85 autos or otherwise results in lower per gallon mileage.

Ethanol's cousin butanol can be shipped by pipeline and gives mileage much closer to gasoline. However, it is difficult to make by known processes. I read in an energy-related site that researchers in Ohio, who I believe are connected to Ohio State, have come up with what they think may be a better process for making butanol.

[poopfuel]

27. couple things

" Brazil uses quite a bit of the cane to produce ethanol which accounts for something like 20-35% of auto fuel"

Vehicle fuel, not auto fuel. That includes trucks, etc. But since trucks don't use it, it all goes in cars. So the percentage is much higher.

Ethanol can certainly be shipped through pipelines as long as there isn't any horrible gas/oil product in them. But why bother? Just put plants in every county in America and not think about shipping.

To deal with lower gas mileage, make several engine adjustments. Insist automakers make cars that are designed for one fuel. Then put pumps all over the country.

Butanol can't be made in our back yard like ethanol can. The stench is overpowering, like rotting meat. It can play a role though.

[amandabeech]

29. We would have to build a pipeline system just for ethanol, since

most of our pipelines carry petroleum products or natural gas. I strongly doubt that all areas of the country are capable of growing sufficient ethanol friendly plants to fuel the entire area. In the northeast corridor, there is little farmland left. In dry areas, like Phoenix, there is insufficient water for irrigation of corn or sugar cane.

If we were able to scale up a successful cellulosic ethanol process, the northeast might do better, but still, many areas won't. I have yet to see a good explanation of what gathering in all cellulosic matter for ethanol production would do to our environment. IMHO, that cellulosic material should either be composted and returned to the soil to promote soil health or should be left in the forests. I don't want ethanol production to increase the amount of chemical fertilizers that we use.

Of course making butanol is a complex process, but if you google butanol and ohio, you'll come up with some researchers who may have a process that would make distillation of butanol more practical. Of course, in a plant, odors are easier to contain or eliminate.

[4dsc]

36. Not true

Brazil has only replaced about 20% of its gasoline with ethanol. and its sugar cane based ethanol which is about 4 times better than corn made ethanol.. The EROEI of corn based ethanol is 1.27/1 and sugar cane is 4.0/1..

[4dsc]

13. More ethanol BS!!

If you believe for a second that an EROEI of 1.67 is a good thing, then I can see why you lost about ethanol!!

Here's Mr Wang's response to Mr Rapier on energy balance:

Dear Mr. Rapier,

Thank you for your email. Apparently, you know that I was pretty upset with your original way of characterizing my work and my character. Working in the scientific area, I am very careful in using language for characterizing others’ work and personalities. I expect that others would do the same to me. Simply put, just like you with great intention of pursuing facts, I have been doing the same myself in my professional career. To characterize me of knowingly misleading the public in biofuel debates is simply wrong. I am gratified that you realized that I treat such mischaracterization seriously.

Getting into the technical discussion that you originated, we all agree that energy efficiency is defined as energy output divided by all energy input (including energy in the feedstock itself). That is, we will take into account Btus in gasoline, ethanol, and all process fuels consumed for producing gasoline and diesel in our accounting for energy input. The amount of process fuels is about 0.25 for each Btu of gasoline produced from 1 Btu in crude oil. Meanwhile, for each Btu of ethanol produced from corn, which is from solar energy during corn growth, about 0.75 Btu of energy are consumed. This amount includes fossil energy (namely, petroleum, natural gas, and coal) in fertilizer production, corn farming, ethanol production, among many other activities. With this definition of energy efficiency (as it is accepted by all of us), ethanol has worse energy conversion efficiency (1/(1+0.75)=58%) than gasoline (1/(1+0.25)=80%). Note that in both calculations, the one Btu in ethanol and gasoline is taken into account as energy input, since they are energy eventually from solar energy in the ethanol case and petroleum energy in the gasoline case. Now you can see that such efficiency calculations take all Btus into account (renewable or non-renewable). That is, the efficiency calculations treat all Btus the same. In reality, all Btus are not created equal. I will get back to this point later.

What has been debated about bioethanol is ENERGY BALANCE, not energy efficiency. Energy balance is defined as the energy in the fuel minus FOSSIL energy input to produce the fuel. Why only fossil energy? That is because to many, fossil is non-renewable. As long as we use it, it will be gone, and it takes millions of years to get it back, if ever. But anyway, we can debate whether energy balance is a right matrix to use for energy policy evaluations. I, together with Mr. Khosla and many others, maintain that energy balance is NOT a good matrix for energy policy debates. But energy balance for ethanol has been debated for more than 20 years and it seems that there is still no way near an ending of this debate.

Now if one thinks a little more about energy balance calculations, one realizes that the calculation excludes renewable energy in energy input accounting, which a small step to the right direction to differentiate different types of Btus. But it adds all three fossil energy types (petroleum, natural gas, and coal) together. The calculation treats all fossil Btus equal, which is still not accurate for energy policy debates. For example, the US has several hundred years of coal supply, while it may have only 10-20 years of oil supply. I do not think that both of us would disagree that the US should value petroleum Btus more than coal Btus. But energy balance calculations do not provide us results to differentiate these two different types of Btus. Mr. Khosla alluded you about the flaws of energy balance calculations in his email.

With the energy balance definition, fossil energy input for one Btu of ethanol produced is still 0.75 Btu. However, fossil energy input for one Btu of gasoline is 0.25 Btu of fossil process fuels consumed PLUS the one Btu in crude oil that is converted into gasoline. Now you may see that the difference between a fossil energy-based fuel (gasoline) and a renewable fuel (ethanol) lies in the Btu embedded in the fuel itself. If it was not this difference between fossil fuels and renewable fuels, we all would conclude without any calculations that renewable fuels could not compete with fossil fuels with respect to energy (that is, all Btus are taken in account with differentiation).

I have made arguments against energy balance comparisons among energy products because they can be less meaningful or misleading. In the past ten years, I have tried to steer the debate on energy products to meaningful issues such as petroleum reductions, fossil energy reductions, greenhouse gas emission reductions, and reductions in criteria pollutant emissions. My point has been that even though corn ethanol has a positive fossil energy balance value, such debates are not that meaningful. I elaborate this step by step in some of my conference presentations. If you read my publications, you would see the consistency in what I think is more important to debate.

I hope this clarifies my positions. By the way, you indicated that you have read some of my publications, I encourage you to take a look at of the report that I coauthored in May 2005 in which I discussed problems of energy accounting and presented well-to-pump energy efficiencies for many transportation fuels including gasoline and corn ethanol. The report is posted at http://greet.anl.gov.

Regards,

Michael Wang

Let's repeat: I have made arguments against energy balance comparisons among energy products because they can be less meaningful or misleading. In the past ten years, I have tried to steer the debate on energy products to meaningful issues such as petroleum reductions, fossil energy reductions, greenhouse gas emission reductions, and reductions in criteria pollutant emissions. My point has been that even though corn ethanol has a positive fossil energy balance value, such debates are not that meaningful.

And lets repeat this:With this definition of energy efficiency (as it is accepted by all of us), ethanol has worse energy conversion efficiency (1/(1+0.75)=58%) than gasoline (1/(1+0.25)=80%).

[JohnWxy]

15. HEre is a widely known presentation by Dr. Wang which tries to explain

that the BTUs invested in gettting a given number of BTUs of gasoline is GREATER THAN the BTUs invested in gettting the same number of BTUs of ethanol:

this info is provided for those interested in getting informed on the issue. NOt posted to get into a pointless argument with someone confused over nonissues.

http://ncga.com/ethanol/pdfs/Wang2005.pdf#search=%22michael%20wang%20argonne%22

As you can see, the fossil energy input per unit of ethanol is lower—0.74 million Btu fossil energy consumed for each 1 million Btu of ethanol delivered, compared to 1.23 million Btu of fossil energy consumed for each million Btu of gasoline delivered.

Some of the confusion arises over the fact that some of the total (not fossil or petroleum) energy used in the production of ethanol is “free” solar energy used to grow the corn in the first place. Indeed, if you include the solar energy inputs, it is true that you “spend” between 1.5 and 2.0 Btu to produce a Btu of ethanol… but since the solar energy is free, renewable and environmentally benign, we shouldn’t care.

The following graph illustrates that while the total energy needed to produce a unit of ethanol is more than the total energy needed to produce a unit of gasoline, ethanol comes out way ahead when you are looking at either 1) the amount of fossil energy needed or 2) the amount of petroleum energy needed.

Regarding BTU content of ethanol vs gasoline - note that while the BTU content of ethanol is lower (about 25% lower) as gasoline continues to go up in price (in part because the supply of oil in the future is not assured) and ethanol goes down or does not increase as much (greater efficiencies are coming - e.g. Iowa State univ. has file for a patent on a ultra-sound process that boosts alcohol yield by about 30%. Cellulosic ethanol will be much more efficient) this will cease to be an issue - if it really IS an issue.

Current low compression engines in cars cant' take full advantage of ethanol's higher octane (thanol 115 gasoliine 87-93). Using turbo-charging, variable ignition timing and a sensor which dedects when ethanol is being used, performance with Ethanol 85 is significantly improved. What does this mean? it means you can use an engine of smaller size (turbo-charging improves SAAB 9-5 Bio-Power by about 25%). So with say a 25% smaller engine guess what? -- you'll use about 25% less fuel. So the mileage issue between ehtanol and gasoline is really not an issue - if you take advantage of ethanol's octane advantage over gasoline.

I hope this clears things up for those who seek to understand the issue.

[amandabeech]

20. I have read elsewhere that a huge amount of the energy used in

corn production is in the natural gas used to make the nitrogen fertilizer. Other than returning manure to the fields up to the needs of the plants for phosphorous, do you have any info on ways to reduce the natural gas input?

[poopfuel]

26. see website below

http://www.e3biofuels.com/index2.html

already being done in India and Brazil

[amandabeech]

30. Similar operations are being tried here.

Considering the available n/p/k ratios from cow manure, you'd have to over fertilize with phosphorus in order to get the huge amounts of nitrogen that corn plants need. Over fertilizing phosphorus means runoff and huge algae blooms because the plants don't take up the excess phosphorus. That is unless the Indians are accepting lower yields or accepting the over fertilization of phosphorus and its consequences.

Most people obsess over the nitrogen component of fertilizer, which is understandable. However, those same people forget about phosphorus which is equally as important to plant growth.

The U.S. has only a 70 year supply of phosphorus, if that, at current usage rates. The biggest phosphorus deposits are in Morocco and China. Although I believe that we have a decent relationship with Morocco, it is an Islamic country, and our current policies have upset many other Islamic countries. Why not Morocco at some point. Our relationship with China currently is peaceful, but it is unclear how long that will last give the trade deficit and China's seemly unquenchable thirst for basic materials.

Why we don't compost just about every ounce of manure and table scraps for the phosphorus, potassium and nitrogen shows our short-sightedness, IMHO.

[poopfuel]

31. yes but you can rotate crops with beets

to bring phosphorus to the surface.
Indians (like Mexican campesinos) probably get higher yields than industrialized agriculture because of the diversity of planting. Polycultural farming, totally organic, can succeed here.

I believe I pointed out at one point that corn takes up 78 million acres. We have 1.2 billion acres of crop and farm land.

See my earlier post for other sources such as mesquite, pimelon, buffalo gourd to be used in dry regions. I think you missed that.

if you return DDGs to the soil, (not manure, the mash leftover from ethanol production) you return the phosphorus as well. So you have fertilizer that is organic and no phosphorus over fertilized

If we established kelp farms along the Gulf coast , we would soak up the fertilizers, oxygenate the water, (kelp breathes in carbon dioxide and breathes out oxygen like any plant) and take care of several problems at once.

Permaculturists say the problem is the solution.

permaculture.com

[JohnWxy]

35. Ethanol facility powered by renewable energy from dairy waste planned

http://www.biontech.com/news/pressreleases/release20060620.asp

Bion’s technology platform provides sufficient renewable energy from the associated animal waste stream to produce ethanol absent any outside fuel source such as natural gas or coal
~~
The integrated Bion platform incorporating ethanol production at Fair Oaks will be a balanced, closed-loop system that the company’s research indicates will create sufficient renewable energy to support one million gallons of ethanol for every 1,000 dairy cows
~~
~~
Bion’s patented technology significantly reduces environmental impacts of large-scale animal farming while enabling herd concentration required for economies of scale in the generation of renewable energy. The patented “microaerobic” process for treating dairy waste biologically converts most of the pollutants so they no longer escape into the air and water, reducing the nutrient content of the treated waste stream in the effluent discharge by 70-80% and air emissions by up to 99%. The closed-loop ethanol production system simultaneously provides an end user for the undried distiller grains and for the dairy’s waste stream.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Iowa farmers reduced their use of Nitrogen fertilzer by 16% (compared to neighboring corn belt state farmers) and maintained or increased their production of corn. Use of low-till farming techniques reduces evaporative losses and erosion and timing the application of fertilizers to the growing season can significantly reduce the use of nitrogen. So far, these techniques have only been marginally used by farmers (they have doubts that these techniques work and it takes time to convince people to try something new). As the cost of fossil fuels continues to climb (natural gas in particular) the cost of fertilizer will go up and this alone will persuade farmers to try these so far relatively novel farming techniques.

The thing is, much can be accomplished in the reduction of the use of nitrogen and fossil fuels. IT just takes a some effort. NOne of this is "rocket science". We're not talking about huge technical challenges or unsolveable problems here. With some effort great improvements in reducing fossil fuel usage can be acheived.

[bhikkhu]

11. from a drop in the bucket to two drops in the bucket,

relative to our dependence on fossil fuel.

Besides, the jury is also still out on the EROI for ethanol, and global grain stores are dangerously low, and falling. From what I have read, the same quantity of grain can either feed a man for a year, or fill the average fuel tank.

I would like to see some good alternative energy news, but this is not it.

[JohnWxy]

16. The real research from legitimate sources consistently shows ethanol

has a postive net energy balance. I realize therre are those who will keep saying otherwise. That is the principle of "the Big LIe" - just keep repeating it and some will think "well it must be so. I mean nobody would keep repeating a bald faced lie like that. If it wasn't so." This is because most well intentioned people would be very embarrassed to be caught in a lie. But this is not the case with the disseminators of disinformation. They are just glad to have everybody's attention (even if it's for just a moment). It makes them feel important, I guess. IT's an easy, quick way to feel important - (without doing any work to earn it.)

Research from the Argonne National Laboratory (U.S. dept of Energy), Michigan State University, Colorado State University, and the Unites States Department of Agriculture all shows ethanol has a net POSITIVE energy balance. Bill Gates, Craig Virgin, Vinod Khosla are a few of some very sharp individuals who are investing heavily in ethanol. Keep in mind ethanol from corn, soy-beans, sugar cane is a transition to cellulosic ethanol which will be much more productive than corn et al at producing ethanol. But in the mean time corn based ethanol will reduce fossil fuel consumption and provide the build out of production capacity which will make cellulosic ethanol practical that much sooner.

There is no confusion regarding ethanol although there is still plenty of disinformation which does confuse many - and that's the point. Exxon Mobil spent millions over 20 to 25 years paying for disinformation on Global Warming. They (and others who financed this crap) have been successful in delaying a response to GLobal Warming for a couple of decades. Speaking in more specifically about financing, one of the two committed critics of renewable fuels (other than hydrogen from fossil fuels) in Ted Patzek. He's the founder of the UC Oil Consortium, which is funded by a number of oil companies. Patzek used to be a petroleum engineer for Shell Oil. Pimentel who has made a bit of career out of writing articles critical of ethanol is a retired professor of entomology. That's the study of insects. He now calls himself an ecologist. His 'studies' and methods have been debunked by Farrell and Kammen(Dan Kammen and Alex Farrell of the Energy and Resources Group at UC Berkeley) of the university of California, Berkeley in the Journal Science (January 2006). Most egregiously, the critics of ethanol leave out any credits for co-products (as well as using old data or data lacking documentation) produced in the ethanol production process, such as distillers grains which is sold as a feed supplement to dairy farmers.

There is no confusion as to the efficiency and importance of ethanol. That's why the production capacity is growing at about a 62% rate (the amount of capacity under construction at the end of 2005 as a percentage of the total operating capacity at that time).

[bhikkhu]

17. I guess the important item to me is

the statement that with the same quantity of corn you can either feed a man for a year, or fill your fuel tank. Perhaps it is not true, or somewhat exaggerated. While some sources of information are better than others, there is not so great a difference between the published figures, and I have no difficulty accepting a positive energy balance for ethanol. Regarding the use of food to replace fossil fuels, I certainly hope that there is, as you mention, a technology soon to transition to cellulosic ethanol.

[hunter]

18. Here's a question nobody will answer...

Why make "cellulosic ethanol" when you can make gasoline and other fuels out of the same stuff?

How does biomass --> synthesis gas --> gasoline compare to biomass --> sugar --> ethanol?

The fear of the ag-industry of course is that gasoline can also be made from coal, which would kill their golden goose of ethanol.

But there is a more basic question than that -- Why are transportation fuels so important to our economy? Maybe we could change our lifestyles so that cars and trucks and airplanes are much less important than they are now. Then fuel wouldn't be a problem.

[bhikkhu]

22. Not being an expert on the refining of hydrocarbons

I would assume that it is simply not practical, or that the EROI of that effort would be negative, and ethanol burns well enough.

On the other question "why are transportation fuels so important" it might be noted simply again that civilization itself seems to be based upon the efficient production of something or other, and then the distribution through transportation of that something or other to wider markets. All early cities evolved in relation to their ease of access or placement on more or less efficient trade routes.

With that said, cheap oil has obviously encouraged a current global civilization all out of scale to what the world has ever had in the past, and some change of lifestyle is warranted.

[JohnWxy]

34. The real research from legitimate sources consistently shows ethanol

has a postive net energy balance. I realize there are those who will keep saying otherwise (that ethanol has a negative energy balance). That is contradicted by all the legitimate science done on this subject (which by the way, shows gasoline does have a NEgative energy balance - for a loss of about 19.5%) That is the principle of "the Big LIe" - just keep repeating it and some will think "well it must be so. I mean nobody would keep repeating a bald faced lie like that. If it wasn't so." This is because most well intentioned people would be very embarrassed to be caught in a lie. But this is not the case with the disseminators of disinformation. They are just glad to have everybody's attention (even if it's for just a moment). It makes them feel important, I guess. IT's an easy, quick way to feel important - (without doing any work to earn it.)

Research from the Argonne National Laboratory (U.S. dept of Energy), Michigan State University, Colorado State University, and the Unites States Department of Agriculture all shows ethanol has a net POSITIVE energy balance. Bill Gates, Craig Virgin, Vinod Khosla are a few of some very sharp individuals who are investing heavily in ethanol. Keep in mind ethanol from corn, soy-beans, sugar cane is a transition to cellulosic ethanol which will be much more productive than corn et al at producing ethanol. But in the mean time corn based ethanol will reduce fossil fuel consumption and provide the build out of production capacity which will make cellulosic ethanol practical that much sooner.

There is no confusion regarding ethanol although there is still plenty of disinformation which does confuse many - and that's the point. Exxon Mobil spent millions over 20 to 25 years paying for disinformation on Global Warming. They (and others who financed this crap) have been successful in delaying a response to GLobal Warming for a couple of decades. Speaking in more specifically about financing, one of the two committed critics of renewable fuels (other than hydrogen from fossil fuels) in Ted Patzek. He's the founder of the UC Oil Consortium, which is funded by a number of oil companies. Patzek used to be a petroleum engineer for Shell Oil. Pimentel who has made a bit of career out of writing articles critical of ethanol is a retired professor of entomology. That's the study of insects. He now calls himself an ecologist. His 'studies' and methods have been debunked by Farrell and Kammen(Dan Kammen and Alex Farrell of the Energy and Resources Group at UC Berkeley) of the university of California, Berkeley in the Journal Science (January 2006). Most egregiously, the critics of ethanol leave out any credits for co-products (as well as using old data or data lacking documentation) produced in the ethanol production process, such as distillers grains which is sold as a feed supplement to dairy farmers.

There is no confusion as to the efficiency and importance of ethanol. That's why the production capacity is growing at about a 62% rate (the amount of capacity under construction at the end of 2005 as a percentage of the total operating capacity at that time).

[JohnWxy]

24. NObody is proposing stopping food production for fuel - unless Monty

Python is back in business. Nobody is saying ethanol is the only technology to be used. Plug in hybrids and improved efficiency will be employed too.

The strongest technology for dramatically reducing the need for fossil fuels is fuel cell technology. Most technical experts feel in two decades this will be ready for 'prime-time'. Some say less time than that will be needed ( ACTA).

fuel cells are 2 to 2.5 times more efficient than ICEs. Incidentally, while fuel cells running on free hydrogen will probably never be practical (too costly in terms of infrastructure and vehicle development) for general transportation fuel cells using hydrocarbons to deliver the hydrogen are likely to be the technology of choice to make fuel cells practical. More research needs to be done but I think ethanol will be one of the preferred fuels to supply the hydrogen. google acta for more info. link: http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage5258.html. There will be enough ethanol from corn and cellulose to supply virtually all the transportation fuel needs once you go to fuel cell techology.

BTW cotton is not a food source. It is very hard on any land on which it is grown.

Ethanol fuel cells:

[Javaman]

23. I have one argument against that...Drought. nt

[poopfuel]

28. we had a terrible drought this year

in many states.
And somehow the corn crop was higher than ever. They are growing more drought resistant strains.
Not that I'm pro-corn here. We should diversify.
Desert plants can make up a huge chunk of our transportation fuel if we work on that. Then there is ethanol from humanure, processed through cattails in marshes. Algae too. No crop damage there.

[hunter]

32. If deserts could be made productive nature would already be doing it.

But I don't see any thick jungles of desert plants...

Agriculture on the desert is only possible with irrigation. As it stands now we are using more water than is available for agriculture by depleting old aquifers.

The notion that deserts are wastelands waiting to be developed is offensive to me. Some of the most elaborate and beautiful ecosystems on the planet are found in deserts. To destroy these in a senseless quest for fuel is the worst sort of environmental abomination.

Ah but who knows? Maybe we could make biodiesel out of fat people when they die. Sell dead Aunt Bessie's big old ass to the oil refinery. Waste not, want not.

We don't need more fuels, not ethanol, not biodiesel, not anything else. What we need is to use much less of what we've already got. We need to get rid of automobiles as they now exist, and replace them with a transportation system that leaves much lighter footprints upon the earth.