NationStates Jolt Archive

Study doubts ethanol efficiency
It takes more energy to produce than it provides, experts say

By Mark Johnson
Associated Press
Published July 18, 2005


ALBANY, N.Y. -- Farmers, businesses and state officials are investing millions of dollars in ethanol and biofuel as renewable energy sources, but a study says the alternative fuels burn more energy than they produce.

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

But researchers at Cornell University and at 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 United States, it takes 45 percent more energy, and for wood, 57 percent.

It takes 27 percent more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel and more than double the energy produced is needed to do the same to sunflower plants, the study found.

"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.

The researchers included such factors as the energy used in producing the crop--costs that were not used in other studies that support ethanol production, Pimentel said.

The study also omitted $3 billion in state and federal government subsidies that go toward ethanol production in the United States each year, payments that mask the true costs, he added.

Ethanol is an additive blended with gasoline to reduce auto emissions and increase gas' octane levels. Its use has grown rapidly since 2004, when the federal government banned the use of the additive MTBE to enhance the cleaner burning of fuel.

About 3.6 billion gallons of ethanol were produced last year in the United States, according to the Renewable Fuels Association, an ethanol trade group.

The ethanol industry contends that using 8 billion gallons of ethanol a year will allow refiners to use 2 billion fewer barrels of oil. The oil industry disputes that.

Ethanol producers dispute Pimentel and Patzek's findings, saying the data are outdated and don't take into account profits that offset costs.

Michael Brower, director of community and government relations at State University of New York's College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse, said reports by the federal Energy and Agriculture Departments have shown that ethanol produced delivers at least 60 percent more energy than the amount used in production. The college has worked extensively on producing ethanol from hardwood trees.

Biodiesel can be used in diesel engines with few or no modifications. It often is blended with petroleum diesel to reduce its propensity to gel in cold weather.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0507180198jul18,1,5043684.story

Maybe they should use biofuel to produce biofuel thereby wasting no fossil fuel in its production?

Ihatevacations']Maybe they should use biofuel to produce biofuel thereby wasting no fossil fuel in its production?
Um and where do they get the input of energy? if every cycle they use 20+ percent more energy then they get from the output they will have less energy to extract the next cycle

Sorry but that does not work

Or maybe we should continue to use up all the available fossil fuels and pollute the atmosphere with ever-increasing CO2 levels that block heat from leaving the planet making global temperatures rise and crops to fail resulting in loss of life across the planet. *Whew*

That's not a surprise. Ethanol subsidies are one of the biggest bulshit pork programs the government has, and nobody will vote against it because they'd lost their rural district support. It's nothing more than a scam, and they know it. Farmers are this country's largest group of welfare recipients, and this is part of our wasting money on them with no return benefit.

Drill the Gulf, build dozens of refineries, and put money in to hydrogen and hybrids. That will help solve the problem, both short term and long term.

Um and where do they get the input of energy? if every cycle they use 20+ percent more energy then they get from the output they will have less energy to extract the next cycle

Sorry but that does not work
Then they obviously need to keep working on the problem instead of saying, ah fuck this. It is obvious some things are better used to produce it in others, just keep looking and perfecting the technique

Ihatevacations']Then they obviously need to keep working on the problem instead of saying, ah fuck this. It is obvious some things are better used to produce it in others, just keep looking
I never said any differently … I personally am hoping for the proliferation of hydrogen power

I never said any differently … I personally am hoping for the proliferation of hydrogen power

Hydrogen would be the best, since it occurs in all organic matter and many inorganic substances on Earth.

Hydrocarbons are loaded with the stuff as well, so a lot of oil fields could be converted in to hydrogen fields if needed.

Farmers are this country's largest group of welfare recipients, and this is part of our wasting money on them with no return benefit.


You see, that's just it. The farmers produce more product than we can use. We pay farmers to NOT grow corn, to try and keep the prices up AND we supplement the value of corn with subsides (example of corn, other produce as well).

Now, say we use nuclear power to power the Biodiesel/Ethanol plant, we make a fuel for vehicles, the vehicles burn both petrol/gas AND Biodiesel/Ethanol and the customer can buy whatever is cheapest, the farmer doesn't need subsidy anymore because we've just quadrupled the demand for corn and we never pay someone to NOT grow produce again... It's a win-win scenario. The study from the first post never took into the calculation the fact that the end user, the guy with the car, gets to pick his own fuel that determine the price and energy demand.

I don't know about non-mobile non-vehicle use for Biodiesel/Ethanol, but for vehicle, it's workable the day after tomorrow and currently, in some states like Minnesota, that is forcing the gas companies there to put upwards of 15% ethanol in their gas, AND selling 85% ethanol at the pump for vehicles that can use it (some mini-vans and stuff like that) for about 65% the price of 85 octane gas... and since the vehicle gets about 75% of the gas mileage when using ethanol instead of gas, the 65% cost saves money. This week they use ethanol, next week gas (if the prices change) and the week after that back to ethanol.

It's perfect capitalism and it's available today, not next decade after billions of dollars of research and trying to make other fuel vehicles that will save gas cost but not also have the benefit of finding a new customer base for Americas farmers (and other countries farmers in their own country, as the case may be).

I never said any differently … I personally am hoping for the proliferation of hydrogen powerI'm hoping for small pebble-bed reactors - or anti-matter. :p

Methane requires very little energy-input (except to compress/liquify).

Methane Fuel Cells are pretty cool too.

But this whole Corporate Welfare thing with ethanol/biodiesel is silly.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the ethanol was produced from excess corn by fermentation. Does fermentation require a lot of energy? If not, I can't really see where the problem is.

<snip>Now, say we use nuclear power to power the Biodiesel/Ethanol plant, And theree's the rub. The Greenies that want us to use biofuels would never stand for using Nuclear to produce them.
we make a fuel for vehicles, the vehicles burn both petrol/gas AND Biodiesel/Ethanol and the customer can buy whatever is cheapest, the farmer doesn't need subsidy anymore because we've just quadrupled the demand for corn and we never pay someone to NOT grow produce again... It's a win-win scenario. The study from the first post never took into the calculation the fact that the end user, the guy with the car, gets to pick his own fuel that determine the price and energy demand.
<snip>
It's perfect capitalism There's the other problem. You said the "C" word. and it's available today, not next decade after billions of dollars of research and trying to make other fuel vehicles that will save gas cost but not also have the benefit of finding a new customer base for Americas farmers (and other countries farmers in their own country, as the case may be).Would be nice wouldn't it...

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the ethanol was produced from excess corn by fermentation. Does fermentation require a lot of energy? If not, I can't really see where the problem is.
Mucho heat. Ever been in a distillery?

Mucho heat. Ever been in a distillery?

Ah, that's true. Silly me for trusting my goody-goody textbooks at school. Anyway, I'll leave you to your discussion, then.

I'm hoping for small pebble-bed reactors - or anti-matter. :p

Methane requires very little energy-input (except to compress/liquify).

Methane Fuel Cells are pretty cool too.

But this whole Corporate Welfare thing with ethanol/biodiesel is silly.
Defiantly
Though PM had an article about efficient biological hydrogen separation … I wish I could find it on their website it was interesting (will page through my magazines when I get home)

Ah, that's true. Silly me for trusting my goody-goody textbooks at school. Anyway, I'll leave you to your discussion, then.
Yeah, room temperature fermentation doesn't provide enough alcohol for adequate, efficient combustion (ever try burning beer or wine?). Gotta boil/condense off the alcohol. If you could make it self sustaining (perpetual motion/2nd law of thermodynamics...) somebody would have already done it.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the ethanol was produced from excess corn by fermentation. Does fermentation require a lot of energy? If not, I can't really see where the problem is.

This (http://www.ethanolrfa.org/student_made.html) explains how ethanol is produced. Basically, 'milling' of corn either done by distillation and fermentation. The link only describes 'wet milling'. Here's how dry milling works.

"In dry milling, the entire corn kernel or other starchy grain is first ground into flour, which is referred to in the industry as "meal" and processed without separating out the various component parts of the grain. The meal is slurried with water to form a "mash." Enzymes are added to the mash to convert the starch to dextrose, a simple sugar. Ammonia is added for pH control and as a nutrient to the yeast.

The mash is processed in a high-temperature cooker to reduce bacteria levels ahead of fermentation. The mash is cooled and transferred to fermenters where yeast is added and the conversion of sugar to ethanol and carbon dioxide (CO2) begins.

The fermentation process generally takes about 40 to 50 hours. During this part of the process, the mash is agitated and kept cool to facilitate the activity of the yeast. After fermentation, the resulting "beer" is transferred to distillation columns where the ethanol is separated from the remaining "stillage." The ethanol is concentrated to 190 proof using conventional distillation and then is dehydrated to approximately 200 proof in a molecular sieve system.

The anhydrous ethanol is then blended with about 5% denaturant (such as natural gasoline) to render it undrinkable and thus not subject to beverage alcohol tax. It is then ready for shipment to gasoline terminals or retailers."

To answer your second question, there seems to be varying opinons. These (http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/library/admin/uploadedfiles/How_Much_Energy_Does_it_Take_to_Make_a_Gallon_.html) are the findings of the Institute for Self-Reliance. This study was done 10 years ago, but the findings are said to be (I haven't read it yet) close to those of recent studies. When they say recent studies, I assume they mean those done by the Department of Agriculture. This (http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm) is the study done by the US Department of Agriculture in 1995 and this (http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/aer-814.pdf) is an update to the study dating from 2002. There's also a couple of critical studies of ethanol production. This (http://acfa.org.sg/library.php?subcat1=Gasoline&subcat2=Alcohol/Ethanol&subcat3=#) study was done by Cornell University professor David Pimentel, published in 2003, and this (http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf) study was done by Tad Patzek in 2004. This (http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/pdfs/EthanolfFuelsRebuttal.pdf) is a brief critique of Pimentel's findings, and this (http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/pdfs/energy_balance_report_final_R1.PDF) is a not so brief critique.

Skim through those and decide for yourself whether ethanol is worthy of our efforts.

You see, that's just it. The farmers produce more product than we can use. We pay farmers to NOT grow corn, to try and keep the prices up AND we supplement the value of corn with subsides (example of corn, other produce as well).

Now, say we use nuclear power to power the Biodiesel/Ethanol plant, we make a fuel for vehicles, the vehicles burn both petrol/gas AND Biodiesel/Ethanol and the customer can buy whatever is cheapest, the farmer doesn't need subsidy anymore because we've just quadrupled the demand for corn and we never pay someone to NOT grow produce again... It's a win-win scenario. The study from the first post never took into the calculation the fact that the end user, the guy with the car, gets to pick his own fuel that determine the price and energy demand.

I don't know about non-mobile non-vehicle use for Biodiesel/Ethanol, but for vehicle, it's workable the day after tomorrow and currently, in some states like Minnesota, that is forcing the gas companies there to put upwards of 15% ethanol in their gas, AND selling 85% ethanol at the pump for vehicles that can use it (some mini-vans and stuff like that) for about 65% the price of 85 octane gas... and since the vehicle gets about 75% of the gas mileage when using ethanol instead of gas, the 65% cost saves money. This week they use ethanol, next week gas (if the prices change) and the week after that back to ethanol.

It's perfect capitalism and it's available today, not next decade after billions of dollars of research and trying to make other fuel vehicles that will save gas cost but not also have the benefit of finding a new customer base for Americas farmers (and other countries farmers in their own country, as the case may be).

This whole subject is heavily impacted by the influence of the watermelon envirionmentalist fanatics. Quit making sense, you'll only confuse them.

Incidentally, there are at least two relatively efficient means of biodiesel production using slaughterhouse waste-products, both of which could benefit from the adoption of more advanced reactor designs in the Generation III and IV types-types you can't build in the U.S. thanks to our Green Lobbies.

Ah, that's true. Silly me for trusting my goody-goody textbooks at school. Anyway, I'll leave you to your discussion, then.

You were not being that silly. The distillery uses heat to fractionate the alcohol it produces, not to produce it. This is necessary in the production of quality liquor, but not necessary in the production of industrial alcohol. In Brazil we have been using ethanol for a few decades now. In the past you had to choose what fuel you wanted to use when you bought your vehicle (rather like choosing between a diesel or gasoline powered, except we had to choose between diesel, gasoline or alcohol powered) Now with improved electronic ignition etc, we have "flex" engines that run off gas or alcohol or any mxture of the two.

To fractionate ethanol does not require much energy as it is the second lightest of the alcohols and as its production is biological that does not require much energy either. I do not see where this report is getting its energy cost figures from. It is a process that has been used successfully here for, as I said, decades. We would not keep doing it if those figures were right.

<snip>
To fractionate ethanol does not require much energy as it is the second lightest of the alcohols and as its production is biological that does not require much energy either. I do not see where this report is getting its energy cost figures from. It is a process that has been used successfully here for, as I said, decades. We would not keep doing it if those figures were right.That sounds interesting, could you post a link to the process?

The reports are figuring in total cost of BTUs produced, including energy expendatures for Farm Machinery, Fertilization, Transportation, processing & refining.

How much of the Brazillian cost is concealed in government subsidy?

This whole subject is heavily impacted by the influence of the watermelon envirionmentalist fanatics. Quit making sense, you'll only confuse them.


:p

I'd put that on a T-Shirt if it would fit LOL :D

You were not being that silly. The distillery uses heat to fractionate the alcohol it produces, not to produce it. This is necessary in the production of quality liquor, but not necessary in the production of industrial alcohol. In Brazil we have been using ethanol for a few decades now. In the past you had to choose what fuel you wanted to use when you bought your vehicle (rather like choosing between a diesel or gasoline powered, except we had to choose between diesel, gasoline or alcohol powered) Now with improved electronic ignition etc, we have "flex" engines that run off gas or alcohol or any mxture of the two.

To fractionate ethanol does not require much energy as it is the second lightest of the alcohols and as its production is biological that does not require much energy either. I do not see where this report is getting its energy cost figures from. It is a process that has been used successfully here for, as I said, decades. We would not keep doing it if those figures were right.

See, I knew I'd heard about Brazil doing it. But two things went through my head:

1. Our school buys cheap textbooks, which are often wrong.
2. I'm tired and don't want to argue about something I know next to nothing about.

Anyway, like I said, I don't particularly want to get involved. But people keep quoting me.

Two questions:

1) Are there any reports that say how much energy it costs to convert hemp into ethanol?

2) As far as the corn goes, if they're making beer anyway, they could simply make beer with only a little alcohol in it and separate the extra alcohol. Therefore, the true energy cost of the ethanol would be the cost of the finished product minus the part of the product that's sold as beer. Does anyone think that this would be significant?

If you could make it self sustaining (perpetual motion/2nd law of thermodynamics...) somebody would have already done it.

it's not perpetual motion - you are neglecting the energy input from the sun and biological processes. the plan isn't to use ethanol to create more ethanol, ya know.

human beings need to take in more in energy inputs that they give off as energy outputs. doesn't stop them from existing.