'Environmental Nightmare:' Bio-Fuels and the United States

[unhappycamper]

'Environmental Nightmare:' Bio-Fuels and the United States
By Alvaro Vargas Llosa
Translated By Halszka Czarnocka
July 20, 2007



For the American continent, throughout history maize has been like rice to the Chinese or wheat to the Middle East. For thousands of years it has been part of the DNA of the region. So it's not difficult to understand the unending hysteria in many Latin American countries over the rise in corn prices, with which tortillas - a dietary staple for millions of people - are made.

In less than four years, leaders and organizations that call themselves progressive have moved from denouncing the precipitous drop in corn prices to denouncing its continuous rise – and are doing so with the same arguments! Not a week goes by without Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez accusing rich imperialists of deliberately inflating the price of corn to impoverish Latin Americans.

But when the price of corn collapsed in 2003, director of the leftist humanitarian organization Oxfam, Phil Twyford, thundered: “The Mexican corn crisis is another example of world trade rules being manipulated to help the rich and powerful, while at the same time destroying the lives of millions of poor people.”

The price increases that have occurred since 2006 have much to do with the production of ethanol, a synthetic fuel made of corn or sugar cane which is subsidized by the United States and Europe. But there are other elements at play here.

Among other factors that make it more difficult for Latin Americans to continue buying tortillas is protectionism, such as the 20 percent tariff imposed by Guatemala on corn imports. In Mexico, indirect price controls have caused white corn shortages, which is the basis of tortillas. Without a doubt, the global cult of ethanol will continue affecting Latin America's Children of the Corn. The pressure to find non-polluting sources of energy in the developed world have turned public opinion in favor of bio-fuels, signaling to politicians and investors and even to conservatives, that ethanol and similar products are the energy of the future. So if someone is to be blamed for the doubling of corn prices in 2006, it should be “green” activists who in many cases are admirers of the very Latin American leaders who now denounce this imperialist conspiracy against tortillas.

~snip~

And this is not to mention that ethanol production requires the use of fossil fuels, to the point that only a fifth of each gallon can be regarded as “clean energy.” In order to replace petroleum with ethanol, the area of corn cultivation in the United States would have to grow exponentially; an environmental nightmare if one thinks of how much land would be needed. But even if ethanol is still in diapers, it's already clear that switching to ethanol will come at a price, and not only in the rising price of corn. still more people.

more

[losthills]

1. Ethanol is a swindle

that will lead inevitably to higher food prices and deforestation, and will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

The purpose of the ethanol fraud is to keep us married to the internal combustion engine and to keep the oil tankers steaming. Any serious and legitimate response to the global warming crisis has got to include phasing out the internal combustion engine. The lie behind ethanol is that we can keep these dinosaurs on the road and still be "green."

Far from being "green," ethanol is an environmental disaster.

[razzleberry]

2. not quite ...

the liquid fuel energy gain is more than ten to one.

I'll post the link with that info ...
(for the one billionth time)
if anyone asks

[greenman3610]

4. yes, please post. missed the first 999,999,999 times

[razzleberry]

6. here is the link ...

http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/PDF/03_28_05ArgonneNatlLabEthanolStudy.pdf

from Argone national lab,
a small 'pdf' file.
top of page two, rightmost of the three groups
rightmost three of four bars

notice how petroleum energy seems to be about 0.1 .

keep in mind that in the US, little electricity is made from petroleum.

the effect is cut the oil companies
and the middle east, out of the deal

[GliderGuider]

9. Ah, it's that one.

Here's the core piece of information.

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.

What this paper is getting at is that it takes somewhat less oil input to produce a BTU of ethanol than a BTU of gasoline. This is because the energy in the final product in the case of ethanol is solar accumulated during the growing of the corn, while in the case of gasoline it is from the original oil. According to their calculations a BTU of final ethanol takes about 0.74 BTU of fossil fuel to produce, while a BTU of gasoline takes 0.23 BTU of fossil fuel.

What this says is that the EROEI of corn ethanol is 1:0.74 or 1.35:1, while the EROEI of refined gasoline is 1:0.23 or 4.35:1. That means that gasoline has over three times the net energy of corn ethanol, and this totally disregards the label beside the box in the graphic labeled "Petroleum Refining" that reads "Other Petroleum Products". Oil refining consumes about 15% of the input feedstock, and half of the output is gasoline while half is other fractions (which are still energetic), so the overall EROEI of oil comes back up to around 10:1. Ethanol stays at 1.35:1

The mendacity and misdirection in this paper is that they count the BTU of output energy into the equation in the case of gasoline, but do not count it in the case of ethanol. They try to get away with this because the BTU in ethanol is from recently captured sunlight, while the BTU of gasoline is from an oil well.

Both energy sources of course have their problems. Oil is a finite resource whose production and use pollute the air, while ethanol is a "renewable" resource whose production depletes soil fertility and ground water, and pollutes the rivers, lakes and oceans with fertilizer runoff. We have built our civilization on a non-renewable fuel source with a high net energy. By moving to ethanol, along with the problems I mentioned above, we are also moving our civilization down the net energy curve. More of our raw energy must go into producing energy rather than being left over for doing other "useful" work. That's the true danger to civilization of moving from oil to ethanol. Of course, if we stick with oil we're screwed anyway, because even its net energy is declining, and it's running out at the same time.

[razzleberry]

10. Huh ?? output energy ? WTF

what are you talking about?,
the output is the output

[GliderGuider]

11. Try looking at it this way

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.

In the case of ethanol, getting a million BTU to the end user (the output energy) requires a total of 1.74 Million BTU of input: the 1.0 million BTU of ethanol and 0.74 million BTU of oil.
For gasoline, getting a million BTU to the end user (the output energy) requires a total of 1.23 million BTU of input, all of it oil.

To make the comparison fair you need to either count the energy that arrives at the gas station in both cases, or discount it in both cases. They don't do that in the paper. In the case of ethanol they exclude it, while in the case of gasoline they include it.

[razzleberry]

12. I want to cut the middle east, out of the deal

That is more important than
some theoretical 'EROEI'

[phantom power]

13. But that's like saying....

"I want to design an engine, and I think that's more important than some theoretical laws of thermodynamics."

You don't get to ignore EROEI.

[razzleberry]

14. do you know what money is?

why export corn,
at $3.40 /bu ,
when its components/products are selling
for more than that

[phantom power]

15. We can get > $3.40 of ethanol from *one* bushel of corn?

And that would mean $3.40 of profit. After we spent the money to input almost as much energy into the process of turning that bushel into ethanol as we got out.

The Phantom is... astronomically skeptical.

[razzleberry]

17. stuff is not free ...did you know this?

the last time I looked...

ethanol buying at, $1.97 a gallon
corn selling at, $3.40 a bushel

yield is 2.8 gallon-ethanol per bushel,
plus the protein content of the corn.

profit is, well, I'm not sure what,
but not 3.40

[phantom power]

18. Indeed, I have heard that "stuff is not free." Since we're not sure, we can run numbers:

I'm reading 2.5 gallons/bushel, but I won't quibble: let's use 2.8

So, we can ostensibly take a bushel of corn, turn it into ethanol, and sell it for $5.52.

Now, we want to make a profit of > $3.40, but how much more? Considering the impact on our topsoil resources and food supply, I'd personally say "one hell of a profit" but let's just say 10% more. So, $3.74 profit is our goal.

$5.52 - $3.74 = $1.78, which is the amount of money we have to work with to make our ethanol. Now here is where that "unimportant" EROEI comes in:

I will use the largest EROEI that I've read: 1.75, to make our case as attractive as possible.

That means we require the energy equivalent of 1.6 gallons of alcohol to purchase, to make our 2.8 gallons. 1.6 gallons of alcohol costs $3.15. Which, you can see, is > $1.78.

That's assuming that all of our available $1.78 goes to energy. None to labor, capital expenditures, maintenance, delivery, raw materials, etc. So, if we include those costs, we really have much less money to work with for purchasing energy.

And, observe that if we use the 1.3 EROEI, the numbers just get worse.

So, when we add up the "cost of stuff," you can see why I'm pretty skeptical. It's not a profit, it's a net loss (compared to selling the corn directly). And that's before we add in whatever we think spending our topsoil resources, food supply, etc is worth to us.

[GliderGuider]

5. I'd be very interested in a link that showed that.

All the research I've seen points to an EROEI of 1.3:1, and then only if you include the DDG in the equation. An EROEI of 10:1 would put it up there with the net energy of Saudi oil. That would be stunning. Please post your link.

Paul Chefurka

[razzleberry]

8. key distiction, liquid energy v. total energy

the great benefit of ethanol,
ps that it cuts oil companies
and the middle east,
out of the deal

[greenman3610]

3. toyota will be road testing a plug in hybrid this fall

PHEVs will be superior to any kind of biofuel
scheme for replacing petroleum.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/07/toyota-to-obtai.html

Asahi.com. Toyota Motor Co. will obtain permission from Japan’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport by the end of July for the testing of a prototype plug-in Prius on public roads.

Toyota will be the first car maker to obtain permission for a plug-in hybrid test in Japan. After completing the road tests, Toyota will start building a way to market the model by leasing them to public (government and municipal) offices.

According to the report, Toyota is testing a lithium-ion battery pack in the plug-in.

Earlier this year, Nikkei Business speculated that Toyota would introduce the plug-in at the Tokyo Motor Show in November.
-----

Ford Motor Company CEO Alan Mulally and Edison International CEO John Bryson announced today that Ford is partnering with Edison subsidiary Southern California Edison in a multi-year, multimillion dollar project to, in Mulally’s words, “investigate and figure out how to commercialize plug-in hybrids.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/07/ford-and-edison.html

[GliderGuider]

7. Yay, we get to keep driving.

I hate being a party-pooper, because PHEVs and BEVs are so dear to so many. But...

We drove into this mess. Why do we think we'll be able to drive back out?

Paul Chefurka

[NNadir]

16. All forms of energy sound great until you try to use them.

It is when you try to get to a single exajoule per year that the problems become more obvious.

There is no such thing as risk free energy.

The contention that energy must be risk free before it is more acceptable than dangerous fossil fuels is simply deluded.

Fossil fuels are unacceptably dangerous and dangerous fossil fuel waste is quickly strangling the planet whole.

Those who adhere to such delusions - mostly middle and upper class brats who have never wanted for a damn thing in their overly long pathetic and generally useless lives - are the problem.

I'm agnostic on biofuels. I don't think there's an analysis that covers all cases of their use. Some, I think are OK; some are less than OK. In more rare cases they're great.