Can't Eat Ethanol (Boston Globe)

[depakid]

I'd prefer to see this in the Des Moines Register, but the more it hits the mainstream press, the better for all of us.

Corn should be used for food, not motor fuel, and yet the United States is committed to a policy that encourages farmers to turn an increasing amount of their crop into ethanol. This may save the nation a bit of the cost of imported oil, but it increases global-warming gases and contributes to higher food prices.

Candidates for president need to tell Americans the truth about ethanol, but they are falling over themselves in pursuit of the farm belt vote. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want more ethanol factories built than even President Bush envisaged when he called for 15 percent of US gasoline consumption to be replaced by alternative fuels by 2017. John McCain, who correctly called the ethanol push a boondoggle in 2000, now says that it is “a very important way to achieve energy independence.”

Ethanol consumes almost a quarter of US corn production. The energy self-sufficiency that all the candidates seek should not come at the expense of the environment or the food supply.

Increased ethanol production isn’t the only reason for the spike in food costs, but it’s more controllable than drought in Australia, higher fertilizer prices, or increased meat consumption by the Chinese. Unlike those other cost-drivers, ethanol production is encouraged by federal subsidies.

More: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/13/8258/

[Taverner]

1. If it were switchgrass ethanol - it would be different

http://www.harvestcleanenergy.org/enews/enews_0505/enews_0505_Cellulosic_Ethanol.htm

[RC]

3. No it wouldn't.

Harvesting switch grass is hard on the wild life that live and/or nest in it.

What is needed is to rethink the whole energy situation from square one.

[Taverner]

6. Everything has a cost

But turning back the clock to an age without energy would not be wise...

Switchgrass is our best ethanol option, and our only energy solution. The other technologies are either undeveloped, or not as common. Ethanol can at least power our existing infrastructure.

[RC]

7. How about the hundreds of thousands of tons of sugar beets that are

left to rot in the fields every year? There are so many options that just can't seem to get any traction because the correct people won't get rich from it.

Another is to legalize Hemp. Look at all the products that can be made from Hemp, including biofuels.

Any idea that comes from the White House is suspect and the switch grass idea came from there.

[poopfuel]

11. all very good suggestions

For more sources and other info that busts ethanol myths, go to

http://www.alcoholcanbeagas.com?bid=2&aid=CD8&opt=

[depakid]

8. "at least power our existing infrastructure."

Therein lies the heart of the cornucopian fallacy (and it won't die until economic and ecological reality drives a stake into it.

No combination of renewables and/or biofuels is going to power the existing infrastructure in the United States as it's run today. The sad part is that even most progressives can't seem to wrap their minds around that and recognize that it's the infrastructure (and lack thereof) that's become the problem.

The days of cheap fuel and food from afar (and the service economies that go with them) are slowly coming to a close.

[4dsc]

10. Well stated,

Most people still don't get it about so called alternative..

So its' worth repeating "No combination of renewables and/or biofuels is going to power the existing infrastructure in the United States as it's run today."..

[Taverner]

12. Yes, and thats why we must keep fuel cheap and available

if you think different you are suicidal

[Nihil]

13. "Suicidal"? Maybe just not delusional?

Not in deep denial about reality?

Not wanting to actively support the bloody theft that is the
current administration's method of trying to provide fuel
that is "cheap and available"?

Personally, I think it is the people who believe that
"we must keep fuel cheap and available" who are suicidal ...
a choice I would respect if it were not taking everyone else
with them - at which point it is no longer just suicide,
it is murder: murder for the joint purposes of greed, laziness
and a belief that "the American way of life is not negotiable".

:grr:

[kristopher]

18. There is substantial proof that you are incorrect.

Wind, solar, wave/current/tidal, and geothermal can absolutely be counted on to maintain the basic culture that we have now. Over a couple of generations of more expensive (but available) energy there will be population shifts as people tend to cluster into village or neighborhood style units and infrastructure alterations like shifts to mass transit systems. We live as we do because of the low price we paid for energy; so if you want to see how we'll become the best predictor is looking at places where people live on a lower energy budget.

Anyway, there is plenty of energy out there, we know how to get it, and we are in the process of making the shift to a new phase in our culture based on those technologies.

And I'm not talking about stuff that is still on the experimental shelf, I'm talking about things ready to deploy. The ONLY hang up is getting the people trained and factories built to crank out the new machines.
So at the worst, we live more like counties that use half of what we use. For example, everyone will find it acceptable to switch to point source water heaters instead of stored hot water. The option is there now, but the still low cost of our energy hasn't motivated change yet. It will happen naturally and it will happen a lot quicker than you'd expect.

So while I agree 100% with your last sentence, I don't think you have fully modeled the cultural response to it. The trade-off to food from afar is less agribusiness and more demand for local foods and produce, which in turn means healthier diets. The clustering allows exploitation of bicycles, the most efficient form of transport out there, again, leading to a healthier lifestyle.

And let me tell you, some of the stuff on the drawing boards is incredible. I know there are always pipe dreams, but you can count on a percentage of those pipe dreams making it to the field. My favorite speculative technology is high altitude wind at between 15,000 and 30,000 feet. It's fanciful, true, but it is one of those fanciful ones (and there are many) that we are only one new material away from exploiting.

As long as the price of fossil fuels keep rising, we are going to be fine. (As long as the oceans don't beltch out all that methane, anyway.)

[NickB79]

26. How long will the deployment of these alt. energy systems take?

Because I know I'm not alone in thinking the world's energy supply will be falling off a cliff within the next 5 years, and the impacts of global warming snowballing rapidly in the same timeframe.

[kristopher]

29. I don't know.

The biggest stumbling block to a unified world response to CC has been lack of concrete data before Republican control of our government and then, once data started firming up, the Republican control of our government.
If the Dems take the legislature and the executive, then we can expect strong measures which will accelerate the deployment and spur R&D.
China is already going balls-to-the-wall on all fronts, including renewables. If through tariffs we relate imports to carbon production at point of origin we can affect their actions considerably.
Another thing to expect is more responsiveness to the timeframe for action in the science. I would expect a Dem government to be less inclined to justify inaction on a belief that a deity has it all under control, and more inclined to think that deities help those who help themselves.

The technology and economics are there and deploy is going to be a function of our political will as it establishes a value for the carbon and other greenhouse gases causing CC. Global sentiment is crying for leadership on this issue and all they've had from us is obstructionism. How fast can things can go if we have the will? Look at aircraft production during WWII and extrapolate from that to a worldwide effort with each unit being capable of between 1.5 - 10 mW.

That's what I see anyway.

[NickB79]

30. Right now I'm concerned that oil production declines will cause the most short-term damage

You stated earlier that "Wind, solar, wave/current/tidal, and geothermal can absolutely be counted on to maintain the basic culture that we have now", but I note that none of those are liquid fuel replacements. We are easily a decade away from having significant numbers of electric or plug-in vehicles on the roads, and with the spread-out nature of the American population, I don't see how we can maintain what we have now without cheap transportation.

[kristopher]

33. No we aren't. The last piece of the puzzle was V2G

A totally electric personal transportation fleet is right around the corner in my view. There are evaluation programs going on around the country on the daily usefulness of of all electric plug vehicle to grid. People don't appreciate that the electrical generating capacity of our personal transportation fleet is 6X the generating capacity of our electrical grid. Replace that with a smart storage that lets people participate in buy-low/sell-high of their transportation fuel to stabilize the grid and soddenly you have that new configuration I keep mentioning. With the backup of widely distributed siting, re-enforced by an equally distributed, extra-high capacity storage system; factor in the pact that when the public buys their car (which should cost less than the Internal combustion engines once batteries are mass produced in sufficient quantities) they are also paying for 90% of the costs of a new storage basis for the new grid. This is one of the knife for our Gordian energy knot.
I don't care how fast oil crashes, we can make this transition without descending into chaos.
Yes we need the quality of liquid fuel. Hydrogen, biodiesels, ethanol - all have a place in our heavy equipment, sea and air sectors.
On cheap trans: if we can transition our personal transportation and electrical generation sectors quickly. The ultimate product is unlikely to be LARGE and cheap. It will be small, light and cheap. There is going to be a complete new value system develop regarding energy as the price rises; it is inevitable. Go to EIA and select some countries that use about half the total energy per capita that we do, then look for the energy intensity numbers for those countries. Then look at population density and distribution (percent in urban/suburban/rural) then last, has the country tried to maintain self sufficiency in food.
You should see a pattern that cuts across cultural lines and deviates with energy consumption. That is where we will go as if by instinct. We make a lot of big environmental decisions based on paying 80% more for a product that gives only a very marginal increase in utility. I love the example of near universal use of point source water heating in much of Europe and most of Asia. But here, we don't get the flow rate we want so you can't hardly give them away. If you don't know the difference, go look it up, it's huge.

Anyway, we'll maintain what we have, it would come craxhing down. But we will be motivated to change.

[NickB79]

34. Oh, I'm not arguing about electric vehicles based on technological reasons

My argument is basically, as we descend into a recession, fewer and fewer people will be able to afford the purchase of a new electric automobile to replace their gas-burning ones. Possibly there will be some kind of government-sponsored buy-out program to assist with this.

[malakai2]

9. Well, then ethanol isn't really an option

Not if it means converting cropland to grassland for the purpose of converting the grass to ethanol. How about some demand destruction in the existing infrastructure? It's not enough for municipalities to stop zoning out rather than up, that still leaves huge suburbs and exurbs of low density with dendritic road patterns where mass transit doesn't work. Force people to confront reality (they could start by acknowledging that ethanol is a loser), get some broad political support for more rational zoning and settlement patterns, and maybe we can maintain some parts of the lifestyle we take for granted.

[NNadir]

32. If I were elected Pope, I would be different.

It ain't gonna happen though.

I've been lobbying the College of Cardinals for years, but they keep stumbling over the wife and kids thingy.

Bigots.

We've been hearing about switchgrass ethanol forever.

There's one minor drawback, from what I can glean:

It's not remotely involved with reality. It doesn't exist.

[msongs]

2. reduce corn feed to cows nt

[XemaSab]

4. I disagree

I had some ethanol with my lunch and it improved my attitude 100%. :D

[Igel]

5. My thoughts exactly.

Saw the headline this morning, and thought, "So what? You can't eat water, either. Does that mean it's unimportant and unnecessary?"

[poopfuel]

14. and furthermore, food prices are mostly OIL's fault

As per this study

http://www.afpc.tamu.edu/pubs/2/515/RR-08-01.pdf

[Fledermaus]

15. As ethanol displaces more and more oil, I’m sure the attacks on ethanol will become more desperate.

Even with the small amount of ethanol we produce now, it is depressing gasoline prices.

[NickB79]

31. Depressing gas prices, yet making it depressing to buy groceries. nt

[JohnWxy]

16. I thought the proportion of the corn crop (all field corn for animals) grown for ethanol was 13-15%

[kristopher]

19. The low EROI of ethanol produces a country that must spend most of its productivity

The low EROI of ethanol produces a country that must spend most of its productivity producing energy. Ethanol is a dead end loser for that and about 8 other reasons.

[Fledermaus]

20. Ok, let’s play your Ponzi EROI game. The EROI of gasoline is 6 to 10 and going down.

And because the fossil fuel EROI energy balance is nothing but a multigenerational pyramid scam, the generation coming in at the end of the game gets screwed.

While ethanol biomass will have an EROI of 8 any time the sun shines.

With your crazy math, and gasoline EROI of 6 to 10, what percentage of the work force is making gasoline….70%???

[kristopher]

21. I believe the theoretical maximum for ethanol is 8:1, no one is close to that.

Just a few years ago best analysis told us it took more energy to produce ethanol than it delivers. Then we have the welfare-to-agribusiness boom and suddenly, with no substantial improvements in technology, you have us at the theoretical max. The going number is 1.2:1 with the ethanol lobby cooking the books trying to get it up to 1.6:1.

Meanwhile, petroleum is still declining but is now coming in at about 20:1. More importantly however, is that our largest wind resource, offshore wind, is conservatively estimated at 35:1 and is climbing so rapidly that it is more likely to be around 50:1 for installations from this day forward. Throw solar, wave/current/tidal and geothermal into the mix with projected similar numbers and the picture for ethanol's 1.2:1 starts coming into perspective as the government boondoogle that it is.

[Fledermaus]

22. EROI of gasoline in the US from well to pump 6 to10

and I'm being generous.

The fossil fuel EROI Ponzi/Pyramid scam energy balance economics is a fool’s game.

[Fledermaus]

27. Pfffftttt! Sugarcane ethanol has an EROI of 8:1 state of the art corn ethanol 5:1

A new technology integrates cattle and an ethanol plant into a so-called closed loop system that also produces energy required for the thermal needs of the plant and fertilizer for crop production.

The technology is on display on a farm adjacent to the University of Nebraska research farm, in Mead, Neb. According to Patrick Tracy of Prime BioSolutions in Mead, the company that has patented the technology, the cores of the facility are a 30,000-head cattle operation and a 25-million-gallon ethanol plant.

Tracy told attendees of the National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants in Seattle, Wash., that the facility captures about 12,000 pounds of actual nitrogen per day, enough to treat about 10,000 acres based on 1.2 pounds per acre needed per bushel of corn. It also produces about 12,000 pounds of phosphorus and 9,800 pounds of potassium per day....

“We also treat the stream with lime, and send the liquid stream over to the stripper to strip off the nitrogen and turn it into an aquas ammonia for commercial grade fertilizer, which can be sold commercially, or we can send it back to the land to grow more corn. In the future, there is the potential for sending these products back to land in cellulosic production.”

Most of the water used is recycled, too, according to Tracy. Some goes back to the cattle, contained in wet feed. The water that is left after nutrients are stripped off is sent via underground pipelines to center pivot irrigation systems for area farmers. There are small amounts of P and N left in the stream.

“Because we’re making all our own energy, we have a 5 to 1 ratio, which is about what cellulosic ethanol is going to be. Low carbon fuels are the fuel of the future. Not only do we want to produce renewable fuels, but we want it in a system that creates low carbon fuel.”

Tracy cited a study by the University of Nebraska which showed that a closed loop system has an 80 percent higher energy coefficient than gasoline production. “Standard ethanol is 13 percent better, dry mill ethanol is 40 percent better, any plant not drying its product is 70 percent. So this is the best low carbon fuel on the market today.”

http://deltafarmpress.com/biofuels/cattle-ethanol-0414 /

US gasoline has an EROI between 6:1 to 10:1 and it's going down every year.

Your fossil fuel EROI energy balance is nothing but a multi generational Ponzi scheme.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ponzi

[skids]

17. ...if you're under 21 years of age :-) n/t

[Javaman]

23. Can't eat it but you can drink it!!! where the hell do you think moonshine comes from? LOL nt

[LongTomH]

24. There are other possibilities for bio-fuels

....than taking land out of production to feed people.

Switchgrass is a possibility. Germany is looking at others: wood residue, straw, and sour milk - stuff we usually throw away.

Rapeseed and sugar cane are out, making way for wood, straw and curdled milk to play key roles as future biofuel energy sources that would not starve the planet by taking over land need for food.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel was on hand Thursday with the heads of automakers Daimler and Volkswagen to inaugurate what was billed as the world's first refinery of "second generation" biofuels in the eastern city of Freiberg.

Germany is way ahead of us in using alternative energy sources.

[GliderGuider]

25. The problem is, all the big proposals have too much impact on the biosphere, and all the small ones

...are too small to address more than local niche needs.

I don't think you could run Germany on curdled milk.

[hogwyld]

28. Oh, I don't know

Once the power grid fails worldwide, there's going to be a lot of spoiled milk.