Acta in talks with major auto producer to produce an ethanol powered fuel cell.

[JohnWxy]

...that is, ethanol is used to provide the hydrogen for the fuel cell. this is much safer and cheaper than working with compressed hydrogen gas - thus, more practical.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5981/is_200705/ai_n24160933?tag=rel.res1

Italy-based Acta SpA says they are in early talks with a major automotive manufacturer to produce a fuel cell powered by ethanol Reuters reported last week. They are also talking to another automaker to produce a fuel cell using ammonia.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2007 Acta produced a ethanol powered fuel cell which was used in a demonstration at the 2007 Shell Eco-Marathon race, held in France on 13 May 2007.
http://biopact.com/2007/05/worlds-first-ethanol-powered-fuel-cell.html

[kristopher]

1. Strange isn't it, that battery storage seems to be the direction we're headed.

Ethanol is a political boondoogle of the first order. Why do you keep hyping it when it makes zero economic or environmental sense?

[JohnWxy]

2. you are disagreeing with most of the scientific research on ethanol. But I guess you're getting

attention, huh?

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

[kristopher]

3. No, I'm in accord with the science and economics of all options

I've seen your bogus presentation before. What I haven't seen is a description of the original work behind this single truncated piece of propaganda you love so much. I can manipulate assumptions enough to produce virtually any result I want, and then produce a report of the "research" with lots of flow charts and pretty colored graphs to support my doctored conclusions. We both know the claims do not stand scrutiny, so why do you keep hyping ethanol? It is an economic and environmental disaster. It is not and cannot act as significant augmentation of or replacement for fossil fuels; and that isn't just my opinion.


Are you financially vested in either ethanol or an engine that ethanol use makes attractive? That is the only reason I can see someone would shame themselves to the point you have on this topic.

[JohnWxy]

6. then why don't you mention a better option than ethanol THAT IS AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW.

and what have you offered, the utter nonsense from Tad Patzek, formerly of Shell Oil and Oil Industry paid spokesman and an article by a retired psychiatrist self trained in ecology who liberally referenced none other than David Pimentel, retired professor of entomology (the study of bugs) falls far short of legitiimate scientific research.

(NOw I am not in the habit of engaging self styled internet pundits in heated debate nor do i want to waste my time on those who are unwilling to understand or incapable of understanding the issue they so eagerly ejaculate upon (complete with personal assaults - I guess that's par for the course, huh?) BUT for those who would like to gain a better understanding of the issue and NOT be confused by those more confused,or confusing, here goes....


Patzek is the cofounder of UC Oil Consortium (University of California would of course not allow him to use their institutions name so he called it UC Oil Consortium to imply some recognition or connection to the University of California. (A technique reminiscent of a con man.) I already pointed out http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=138650&mesg_id=143435">here in response to one of your efforts where-in you referred to Patzek's stuff an example of utter nonsense Pazek wrote.

Regarding the quote provided in "Peer Review 2",(I tried to down-load the full report but it's not available)------

Patzek says: "With the DDGS co-product energy credit, 3.9 gallons of ethanol displace on average the energy in 1 gallon of gasoline." this is patent nonsense . first of all, in comparing energy content of ethanol to gasoline, what does the co-product credit have to do with the amount of energy in a gallon of ethanol? - absolutely NOTHING. The coproduct credit is used in computing the proper allocation of energy to the multiple products of the ethanol production process (ethanol and Dried Distillers Grain (DDGS). The energy value of ethanol (I assume he's referring to the Heat Value of ethanol versus gasoline) in BTUs is 76,000, while gasoline's is 116,090. This means that it would take 1.5 gallons of ethanol to provide the same BTUs as a gallon of gasoline - NOT 3.9 gallons - that Patzek states.

But that's not all, looking at the heat value is only part of the evaluation. (Patzek want's you to think that's all their is to consider when he knows these fuels are to be used in an internal combustion engine combusted under pressure. --added here _JW). If you were burning ethanol in the open (not under pressure as in an internal combustion engine) that would be the whole story BUT these are fuels to be used in automobile internal combustion engines where combustion chamber pressure has to be considered. Ethanol has an octane rating of 113 whereas gasoline's is 92-93 (for high test gas). this means ethanol can be used in a much higher compression engine (using turbo -charging or super-charging for example) and deliver much more power than gasoline used in a lower compresssion engine. This is what three MIT researchers showed when they designed an ethanol direct injection engine which is turbo charged and produces so much power the engine can be reduced to about half the size of a similar power gasoline powered engine. The result is 25% to 30% better fuel consumption because the engine is so much smaller.

NOw, regarding Patzek's article it is a critique of a meta-analysis done by Farrell and kammen of Univ Calif - Berkeley which attempted to compare several studies of the costs of producing ethanol. Patzek doesn't appear to offer any new emperical research to counter Farrrell and Kammen's findings." Emperical research, well constructed, trumps theoretical musings or arm chair critiques any day.

As for one of the experts you rely upon, Tad Patzek is widely recognized for his tendentious articles of thin documentation and that he is a front man for the oil industry: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_40/b4052052.htm

Big Oil's Big Stall On Ethanol
Even as it pockets billions in subsidies, it's trying to keep E85 out of drivers' tanks

For some industries, the prospect of $3.5 billion in federal subsidies now, and double that in three years, might be a powerful incentive. But not, apparently, for the oil industry, which is seeing crude oil prices soar to record highs. Despite collecting billions for blending small amounts of ethanol with gas, oil companies seem determined to fight the spread of E85, a fuel that is 85% ethanol and 15% gas. Congress has set a target of displacing 15% of projected annual gasoline use with alternative fuels by 2017. Right now, wider availability of E85 is the likeliest way to get there.
~~
~~
At the same time the industry is collecting a 51 cents-per-gallon federal subsidy for each gallon of ethanol it mixes with gas and sells as E10 (10% ethanol and 90% gas), it's working against the E85 blend with tactics both overt and stealthy. Efforts range from funding studies that bash the spread of ethanol for driving up the price of corn, and therefore some food, to not supporting E85 pumps at gas stations. The tactics infuriate a growing chorus of critics, from the usual suspects—pro-ethanol consumer groups—to the unexpected: the oil industry's oft-time ally, the auto industry.
~~
One prong in the oil industry's strategy is an anti-ethanol information campaign. In June the API released a study it commissioned from research firm Global Insight Inc. The report concludes that consumers will be "losers" in the runup to Congress' target of 35 billion gallons of biofuel by 2017 because, it forecasts, they'll pay $12 billion-plus a year more for food as corn prices rise to meet ethanol demand. The conclusions are far from universally accepted, but they have been picked up and promoted by anti-ethanol groups like the Coalition for Balanced Food & Fuel Policy, made up of the major beef, dairy, and poultry lobbies(my emphasis_JW)
~~
Academia plays a role as well. There is perhaps no one more hostile to ethanol than Tad W. Patzek, a geo-engineering professor at the University of California at Berkeley. A former Shell petroleum engineer, Patzek co-founded the UC Oil Consortium, which studies engineering methods for getting oil out of the ground. It counts BP (BP ), Chevron USA, (CVX ) Mobil USA, and Shell (RDS ) among its funders. A widely cited 2005 paper by Patzek and Cornell University professor David Pimentel concluded that ethanol takes 29% more energy to produce than it supplies—the most severe indictment of the biofuel. Michael Wang, vehicle and fuel-systems analyst at the Energy Dept.'s Argonne National Laboratory, says among several flaws in the study is the use of old data and the overestimation of corn farm energy use by 34%.

I tried to give the readers a link to UC Oil page but apparently Mr Patzek has taken the site down. Too bad, there is a page there giving instructions to would be contributors how much to give. Mr. Patzek is an enterprising sort for sure.



Here is a link to the Farrell and Kammen study that Patzek commented on:
Farrell and Kammen meta-analysis of four legitimate studies and two articles, loosely documented by Patzek and Pimentel:

Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals
Alexander E. Farrell,1* Richard J. Plevin,1 Brian T. Turner,1,2 Andrew D. Jones,1 Michael O’Hare,2
Daniel M. Kammen

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~twod/oil-ns/articles/science_ethanol_farrell_feb06.pdf
excerpts from articles)

Two of the studies stand out from the others
because they report negative net energy values
and imply relatively high GHG emissions and
petroleum inputs (11, 12). The close evaluation
required to replicate the net energy results showed
that these two studies also stand apart from the
others by incorrectly assuming that ethanol
coproducts (materials inevitably generated when
ethanol is made, such as dried distiller grains with
solubles, corn gluten feed, and corn oil) should
not be credited with any of the input energy and
by including some input data that are old and
unrepresentative of current processes, or so
poorly documented that their quality cannot be
evaluated

NOtes and references:
11. T. Patzek, Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 23, 519 (2004).
12. D. Pimentel, T. Patzek, Nat. Resour. Res. 14, 65 (2005).

for a look at the model they developed(click on "Download the Supplemental Online Materials (version 1.1.1) (1.2 MB)": http://rael.berkeley.edu/EBAMM/


ABOUT THE RESEARCH
YOUR argument isn't with me, I'm just reporting what legitimate researchers have found. Your argument is with Michael Wang of the Argonne National Laboratory, Hosein Shappouri of the USDA, Bruce Dale - Michigan State University to name a few.

Michael Wang and the GREET model: http://www.transportation.anl.gov/software/GREET/greet_gold_standard.html

Government, industry, and academic researchers are developing advanced vehicle technologies and transportation fuels to help reduce the nation's dependence on oil, lower greenhouse gas emissions and urban air pollutants, and boost energy efficiency. To assist these efforts, Argonne National Laboratory's Dr. Michael Wang has created a transportation analysis tool that allows users to accurately evaluate the energy and environmental benefits of such technologies and fuels.

The GREET (Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation) software model addresses the need for truly comparative full fuel cycle (or well-to-wheel) analyses. Developed in a user-friendly Microsoft® Excel platform with a graphical user interface, the model is available to the public free of charge.

The Society of Automotive Engineers maintains that GREET has become a "gold standard" for well-to-wheel analyses of vehicle/fuel systems.

Users that can benefit from GREET include government agencies, the auto industry, the energy industry, research institutes, universities, and public interest groups. Already, more than 5,600 GREET users in both the public and private sectors are registered throughout North America, Europe, and Asia.

REgarding Michael Wang: http://www.transportation.anl.gov/staff/resumes/wang.pdf
and; http://www.scientificjournals.com/sj/all/AutorenAnzeigeESS/autorenId/4996

more research by M. Wang: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TH1-4700H4X-5&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a843f2ee28fec5ad525976ca8aca3b84

And then the work of Shappouri at the USDA:
http://www.ethanol-gec.org/netenergy/NEYShapouri.htm

This report estimates the net energy balance of corn ethanol utilizing the latest survey of U.S. corn producers and the 2001 U.S. survey of ethanol plants. The major objectives of this report are to improve the quality of data and methodology used in the estimation. This paper also uses ASPEN Plus, a process simulation program, to allocate total energy used to produce ethanol and byproducts. The results indicate that corn ethanol has a positive energy balance, even before subtracting the energy allocated to by products. The net energy balance of corn ethanol adjusted for byproduct credits is 27,729 and 33,196 Btu per gallon for wet- and dry-milling, respectively, and 30,528 Btu per gallon for the industry. The study results suggest that corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy output/input ratio of 1.67.

and research by Dale and Kim: http://www.eesi.org/briefings/Pre2003/07.31.02.brf_files/Allocation%20Procedures%20in%20Fuel%20Ethanol-Final.pdf

"The net energy, including transportation to consumers, is 0.56 MJnet/MJ of ethanol from corn grain regardless of the ethanol production
technology employed."

REAd Dale's definition of net energy:

"The net energy is cumulative energy, defined as energy consumed
in the fuel life cycle including the heat content of fuel
so that the energy quality is implicitly taken into account.
For instance, one MJ of electricity might be different from
one MJ from coal or another fossil fuel in terms of the energy
used because electricity requires more energy to generate
than it delivers at the end use. For example, the net energy
for electricity in the United States is 2.1 MJnet/MJ of
electricity <10>. This value indicates that 2.1 MJ of energy is
required to generate one MJ of electricity."

Dale's definition of 'net energy' is the inverse of what most people call "Net Energy Balance" or what I would call "Net Energy Gain"
The net energy gain of electricity then would be: 1/2.1 or: 0.476190476.

The net energy gain or net energy balance for ethanol would be: 1/.56 or: 1.785714286


THe debate re net energy gain (or balance if you prefer) of ethanol is long over-with. Only fools and fanatics forbear against ethanol on this basis any more. Ethanol based on corn however, is NOT the final answer. Cellulosic ethanol will hopefully in time replace it and be better. The real hope for reducing fossil fuel usage is fuel cells but they are a couple of decades away. We cannot afford to wait until fuel-cells are practical before taking action reducing fossil fuel usage. Any better alternatives to ethanol, currently available, I am interested in and would love to hear about. Otherwise as I said I don't like engaging in discussions with self styled internet pundits who don't undrstand what they are talking about nonetheless ejaculate ad infinitum and tirelessly on their issue of ignorance. I don't want to have to go on repeating myself for these types. however, I am happy to answer questions from those sincerely trying to understand an issue if I feel I can actually contribute to the discussion.

[JohnWxy]

7. Addendum: I posted re the ethanol fueled fuel cell vehicle because

Using a hydrocarbon to supply the hydrogen for the fuel cell will be cheaper, safer and therefore more practical. Also, ethanol used in this way will deliver far more miles to the gallon and with NO GHG emissions (except in the cultivation of whatever source crop you use which by the time the ethanol fuel cell is practical will hopefully be cellulosic sources such as shitch-grass - a variety native to the American plains.). This means fewer gallons of ethanol will be required to achieve a certain number of miles traveled. The Oak Ridge Laboratory has estimated that the U.S. could meet about 1/3 of it's transportation fuel requirements with biofuels (assuming cellulosic ethanol becomes practical) and assuming using ICEs. This means used in fuel cell powered cars it would take fewer gallons of ethanol than the figure ORL computed would be needed.

[kristopher]

10. You're still trying to confuse the issue.

Your tactic is to use reams of out of context quotes in an attempt to turn the discussion down a path so arcane no one will follow. Well that isn't where the meat of the discussion is, and you know it.

First, the chart. What it makes clear is that the verbal claim of ethanol delivering more fuel for less input is a deliberately misleading statement. The verbiage appears to specify fossil fuels only and excludes the input of the biomass fuel as part of that particular finding. The first section of the chart clearly shows an extremely large advantage for fossils that directly contradicts the impression created by the quote regarding energy delivered to the pump.
It is a dishonest report, period. Without using the term it is essentially making the claim that ethanol has a higher EROEI than fossils. Deny it all you want, but that is the desired impression the writer(s) was trying to create.

Ethanol cannot deliver the energy surplus that is necessary to sustain anything other than a "madmax" style feudalistic world. It is not a replacement for fossil fuels.

As to can I name a better option, sure, a better option is battery electric with renewables supplanting the fossils on the grid. Biofuels CANNOT provide the fuel for our personal transportation infrastructure - they simply don't bring enough energy to the table for the amount expended to create them.

They do have a place in the future mix, however. What they provide is a portable, high energy density means of energy storage for specific applications such as shipping, air travel, and heavy equipment. The EROEI is an important yardstick to help decide the way forward; and even though the EROEI of biofuels is low, they will be used because of their energy quality. When we set out to gather energy, however, wind is the best thing going right now. With massive development of renewables like wind, that have an EROEI well above that of petroleum, then we will not require of the biofuels more than a marginal gain as we transfer the gathered electricity into a stored, portable form for the applications that absolutely require it.

I ask you again, do you have a financial interest in either ethanol or an engine that benefits from ethanol?

[JohnWxy]

12. battery electric ? this is available and practical right now? please tell me where I can buy a car

powered by batteries - that the normal person can afford. Available now doesn't mean 10 or 20 years from now.

CONFUSE THE ISSUE - MAYBE FOR YOU. YOu complained about briefing charts so I'm giving readers more to see. As I said in my comment i'm not interested in debating with someone who either will not or CANNOT understand the issue. I'm beginneing to believe you represent the latter. You dont' understand the chart but you apparently can't or won't read the reports and studies.

I can't carry on a sensible conversation with a hamster who thinks he's a human.

( by the way: I have absolutely NO financial interest in ethanol production.)


Try reading the studies some are in pretty plain ENglish.

[kristopher]

14. The goal is a new energy infrastructure.

And we are not going to build that around a fuel that has an EROEI of 1.2:1, which is what you get when you subtract the inappropriate inclusion of the energy content of non-utile by products. From your linked article:
"In the allocation based on energy content, which uses
the energy contents of ethanol and its coproducts, the dry
milling system gets a 39-percent coproduct net energy credit,
and wet milling has a 43-percent coproduct credit. The dis-
advantage of this method is that the calories of coproducts,
a measurement of food nutritional value, are not a good
measurement of energy in a fuel context."

As an energy carrier biofuels offer high energy density, and portability for specific applications that can be met no other way.

Your insistence on promoting this political boondoogle through the continued use of narrow, misleading arguments is inexplicable if your goal is either carbon reduction or a functioning post fossil fuel energy infrastructure.

It isn't complicated. Even granting the grandest claims you assert, that 1 unit of energy input yields 1.5 units of energy at point of use, that isn't enough.

It isn't complicated, it is simplicity itself.

For wind and solar, 1 unit of energy input provides 20 - 50+ units of energy at poiint of use.

It isn't complicated, it is simplicity itself.

The fact that you rely on a tactic of trying to obscure and complicate the issue is telling about your motives, IMO.

[JohnWxy]

17. the ethanol direct injection engine Ford is working on mass producing with MIT researchers

only uses 5% ethanol and 95% gasoline. NOte very little infrastructure costs to making ethanol available (say compared to hydrogen compressed gas).

in terms of miles per galon of ethnanol produced what's that do to your figures. 25% to 30% decreased fuel consumption with 1/20th the amount of ethanol (compared to using strait ethanol). or 33% to 43% more miles for every 1/20th of a gallon of ethanol. Or 20 times that many miles for every gallon of ethanol produced. Figure cost of production to miles gained then.

[kristopher]

20. So you propose what? Another few generations of fossil fuel engines?

That would have been a nice find 30 years ago, or it might have application in places other than the personal transportation sector, but it isn't what we need now. We MUST shift the personal transportation sector to battery electric if we are to have any hope of dealing with climate change in a timely manner.

[JohnWxy]

24. Who's against battery powered cars? are you saying wait for that to become practical?How long will

it be for this to be a reality, hamster?

What can you offer that is practical right now instead of ethanol.

I'm getting tired of this, hamster. Where can I buy a battery operated car right now?

We can't do nothing until fuel cells or whatever becomes a reality.

[kristopher]

25. Stop the name calling.

Where can I buy the ethanol enhance whizbang you're promoting?

V2G technology is the lynchpin of a renewable energy infrastructure. LIon batteries are being deployed right now as part of hybrid technology.

You should read more and spout off less.

[JohnWxy]

16. I am tiring of having to read your pointless drivel. Dont respond unless you can make some sense.

[kristopher]

18. I've consistantly made the same point. Ethanol is a boondoogle.

And you are trying to hoodwink people using inappropriate metrics that minimize the failures of ethanol while simultaneously obscuring the importance of how much surplus energy a given technology yields.

Why are you doing that? You refuse to engage on either of those primary points, instead preferring to resort to personal attacks.
I've posed the questions below to you before, instead of answering them, you (inappropriately) attacked the lead author.

It is a very attractive idea to think that we can satisfy our voracious
appetite for inexpensive liquid fuel from a renew-
able resource such as corn.
But is it justified? Is the large-scale domestic pro-
duction of corn-based ethanol going to provide
“energy independence” from foreign oil as claimed,
as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions, revital-
ize the farm belt, keep the U.S. economy growing,
and replacethe global decline in petroleum produc-
tion with the advent of Peak Oil?


...Does ethanol production actually result in signif-
icantly more energy available to do work than the
energy required to produce it?

[JohnWxy]

22. read the studies hamster, I'm getting tired of you making no sense whatsoever.

Dale and Kim's study - 78% net energy gain:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x145145#145324

Shapouri's study 67% net energy gain
http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/net_energy_balance.pdf

"Table 4 presents the final net energy balance of corn ethanol adjusted for byproducts.
The net energy balance estimate for corn ethanol produced from wet-milling is 27,729
Btu per gallon, the net energy balance estimate for dry-milling is 33,196 Btu per gallon,
and the weighted average is 30,528 Btu per gallon. The energy ratio is 1.57 and 1.77 for
wet- and dry-milling, respectively, and the weighted average energy ratio is 1.67."


Farrrel and Kammen, Univ. of Calif Meta-ANalysis: (which said Patzek and Pimentel used data so poorly documented it could not be evaluated as to its quality - in other words they pulled said data out of their asses.) I should respond to that crap?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060126194250.htm


link to their model (click on: Download the Supplemental Online Materials (version 1.1.1) (1.2 MB): http://rael.berkeley.edu/EBAMM/



Nobody is saying ethanol from corn will replace gasoline entirely (their is nothing that can do that in less than 50 years - where's your alternative currently available and practical!!) - I AM SAYING ETHANOL REDUCES GASOLINE USAGE AND WHAT BETTER ALTERNATIVE CAN YOU PROVIDE THAT IS AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW??? WE CANNOT WAIT UNTIL FUEL CELLS ARE PRACTICAL FOR CARS. WE CANNOT WAIT AND DO NOTHING IN THE MEANTIME, HAMSTER.


YOUR ARGUMENT ISN'T WITH ME IT'S WITH DALE, WANG, SHAPOURI, KIM AND OTHERS. I'M JUST REPORTING WHAT LEGITIMATE RESEARCHERS ARE SHOWING.

[kristopher]

23. You repeat the same rubbish ad nauseum

A (dubious) 67% gain on energy invested is NOT GOOD WHEN COMPARED TO A 2000% - to 5000% (and headed higher) GAIN with solar, wind or other renewables.

What is it about that point that you do not understand?

[JohnWxy]

26. I can't put a wind-mill on my car. I'm for solar research and develop and wind power.

got a battery powered rechargeable car for me right now, hamster?

develop these technologies all but you can't wait till they're available to do something.

you keep turing your wheel, whee-whee-whee-whee-whee.

Nobody's opposed to developing better technologies but we can't wait till they are available and do nothing in the meantime, hamster.

[kristopher]

28. Spending money on ethanol is worse than doing nothing

It degrades the environment, diffuses public support for policies that are meaningful and consequently wastes scarce resources and time.

"It is a very attractive idea to think that we can satisfy our voracious
appetite for inexpensive liquid fuel from a renewable resource such as corn.
But is it justified? Is the large-scale domestic production of corn based ethanol going to provide “energy independence” from foreign oil as claimed, as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions, revitalize the farm belt, keep the U.S. economy growing, and replace the global decline in petroleum production with the advent of Peak Oil?

Does ethanol production actually result in significantly (1.67:1 is not ‘significant’) more energy available to do work than the energy required to produce it?

What impact does the use of corn for ethanol have on the supply and cost of food?

Is there sufficient water available to produce ethanol on a large scale?

What is the impact of ethanol production on soil fertility?

What is the impact of ethanol production on forests?

Does ethanol reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants?

What is the impact of ethanol production on the poor and on indigenous peoples?

Does ethanol production make economic sense?"

[JohnWxy]

38. solar and wind do not represent a currently available alternative to ethanal for cars.

YOure comparing apples to oranges for current and near future. Even when plug-in hybrids become available the amount of power beiing produced by wind would only be about 1% of the total (most of the power to recharge plug-ins for years to come will come from fossil fuels). OTher approaches such as home fuel cells are in the future along with plug-in hybrids. also, plug in hybrids can and should be employed but that is not an argument for not using a cost effective renewable fuel as ethanol.


solar has great potential for the future, but not currently cost effective (need to keep working on getting it there though). Again, what percentage of total power available to plug-ins when available would be from solar - that is, great idea but not available now.

do you understand the idea of currently workable and cost effective as opposed to potentially workable IN THE FUTURE.

I guess not.

Stop posting replies to my stuff until you can demonstrate the most basic grasp of logic.

[kristopher]

43. No, I'm looking at "the big picture"

We are looking for a solution to our energy problems, and transportation is only one element of the entire picture. Ethanol does not solve our transportation sector problem, nor does it solve any other related problems. It returns too little energy for the energy invested for it to be a valid means of gathering surplus energy.

The fudge factor has been pointed out to you many times before yet you continue to act like it is something you couldn't possibly know. So, one more time from your link: Allocation Procedure in Ethanol Production System from Corn Grain by Seungdo Kim and Bruce E. Dale on page 6: ""In the allocation based on energy content, which uses the energy contents of ethanol and its coproducts, the dry milling system gets a 39-percent coproduct net energy credit, and wet milling has a 43-percent coproduct credit. The disadvantage of this method is that the calories of coproducts,a measurement of food nutritional value, are not a good measurement of energy in a fuel context."

That returns the EROEI of ethanol to the 1.2:1 value that is the accepted norm.

The environmental effects of ethanol are on a scale with other farming activities; if you don't think such agribusiness isn't an environmental problem related to land and water use, I'm not going to argue it with you. Too many other people know otherwise.

What we are searching for isn't someting to lower gasoline prices and it isn't something to augment the current supply of gasoline; what we are looking for is a total replacement for gasoline and diesel in the transportation sector. In order for ethanol to be self sufficient and deliver enough fuel for this nation's personal transportation sector, it would need to deliver on the order of 400,000,000 gallons of gasoline for transportation use each and every day. That means that with a 1.2:1 return rate and relying on ethanol as the source of input energy, we must actually produce some 2,000,000,000 gallons of ethanol each and every day, 365 days per year. That's 730,000,000,000 gal/year. Allowing for the input from sunlight, we fractionally better of, so lets call it 600,000,000,000 gallons per year. That means devoting about 1.2 billion acres to farm for ethanol production. Otherwise, we are using coal generated electricity as input, since we are spending all our money on ethanol and have none left over to develop other renewables.

Now, we could do all of that for transportation. We could....

But do we want to?

The answer is no, we don't want to. Why not?

Because we get a much larger return on energy invested if we put it into wind, solar, wave/tidal/current, and geothermal.

Led by wind, any and all of those give a return on invested energy thousands of times higher than biofuels. They also serve other needs besides the transportation sector.

The personal transportation sector is best served with battery electric in a Vehicle to Grid (V2G) configuration. Nmh and especially LIon is currently deployed in a number of hybrids and Tesla's roadster is 100% battery electric. Several pilot programs are deploying fleets of corporate, electric only V2G vehicles to confirm the amount they can contribute to grid stability. With large scale deployment of the V2G technology in the private sector, the costs of integrating renewables into the grid plummets dramatically, while simultaneously increasing overall grid reliability and dramatically decreasing overall costs of electricity to all sectors.

With clean grid energy we can use biofuels as they are best suited - to operate the heavy machinery of life that requires the extreme energy density and portability of liquid fuels. Serving only that portion of the transportation sector should be possible without destroying ourselves in the process.

[JohnWxy]

44. The "fudge factor" as you refer to it is the allocation of energy consumed in producing ethanol and

it's various co-products. This allocation is not a "fudge factor" it is recognized as necessary by all sensible people as well as legitimate researchers. You have to allocate the energy consumed in the production process to all the end items produced.

Farrell and Kammen referring to Patzek and Pimentel's articles: http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/541/farrellethanolscience012706.pdf

"Two of the studies stand out from the others because they report negative net energy values
and imply relatively high GHG emissions and petroleum inputs (11, 12). The close evaluation
required to replicate the net energy results showed that these two studies also stand apart from the others by incorrectly assuming that ethanol coproducts (materials inevitably generated when
ethanol is made, such as dried distiller grains with solubles, corn gluten feed, and corn oil) should not be credited with any of the input energy.."

there are several approaches to allocating input energy consumed to the end products produced:
YOU can allocate the consumed energy by market value of end products, energy content of outputs, mass of the end products, according to processes and system expansion.

I will include a more complete excerpt from Kim and Dale's report that includes the quote you pasted into your comment.

The allocation by market value, using 10-year average market
values of ethanol and its coproducts, results in a 76-
percent of the total net energy allocated to ethanol in the
dry milling system and a 70-percent in the wet milling case
<8>. In the allocation based on energy content, which uses
the energy contents of ethanol and its coproducts, the dry
milling system gets a 39-percent coproduct net energy credit,
and wet milling has a 43-percent coproduct credit. The disadvantage
of this method is that the calories of coproducts,
a measurement of food nutritional value, are not a good
measurement of energy in a fuel context <8>. The output
mass allocation results in about 49 percent (48 percent) of
the net energy used in the dry milling (wet milling) system
assigned to ethanol.

They are not saying allocation of input energy to all end products is not appropriate, just that allocating using caloric content of coproducts (a measurement of food nutritional value) is not a good meassure of energy content in a fuel context.

Then The authors go on to explain -

The net energy value allocated to ethanol by output mass is
lowest, and the net energy value associated with ethanol done
by the system expansion is highest(in other words this is the most conservative approach_JW).

~~
~~

The net energy associated with ethanol in the system expansion (The system expansion method is what the authors used_JW)
approach is 0.56 MJnet/MJ of ethanol in the base
scenario, including ethanol transportation to consumers.
Therefore, the available energy from ethanol is much higher
than the input energy for producing ethanol. In other words,
using ethanol as a liquid transportation fuel would significantly
reduce domestic use of petroleum even in the worstcase
scenario.

This thread was not meant to cover the entire energy issue, of which I am aware. ( Before the passage of the 2005 energy bill I called and emailed my Senators and Representatives in D.C. to inform them of the merits of Wind Power and that it was the cheapest source of electrical power available to us and that the Production Tax Credit for renewable energy technologies should be a part of the energy bill being considered.) IF I wanted to discuss the entire energy problem I would have done so. (actualy I have in many posts over the last couple of years on DU).

This thread was meant to point out a significant developement in fuel cells - that Acta, a designer and builder of fuel cells (some using ethanol as the hydrogen source), has entered into talks with a major auto manufacturer to supply fuel cells for automotive applications. A development that means fuel cells are moving out of the laboratory. This is a good thing.

Ethanol from corn is not intended to be the FINAL SOLUTION to all our energy problems. (I seem to have to keep repeating this over and over and over and...) but that doesn't mean it is without value. A number of technologies (hopefully) are coming in the future but WE CANNOT WAIT 10 or 20 years to act on and reduce our use of fossil fuels. Ethanol does not have to replace ALL of the gasoline used to be of value (this is another bit of bull the oil industry mouthpieces are taught to assert.) Waiting for the perfect solution is a luxury we cannot afford.

I'm have been a proponent of Wind Power for a some time, but I am a realist too. Wind power to recharge battery powered cars or plug in hybrids is quite a few years off. It's going to take some time to get wind generated electrical power up to a significant proportion of the total electricity generated in the U.S. UNtil that time when you recharege your plug-in hybrid or battery powered car you are just substituting one fossil fuel (coal or natural gas) for another (gasoline). We can't pass up viable technologies which will reduce fossil fuel usage in the mean time.

Now, If you are aware of questions of land usage -

YOU'LL HAVE TO BE SPECIFIC AND MAKE YOUR POINT! (but SUCH A POSITION DEMANDS IT'S OWN THREAD). IT DOESN'T CUT IT TO JUST SAY: "The environmental effects of ethanol are on a scale with other farming activities; if you don't think such agribusiness isn't an environmental problem related to land and water use, I'm not going to argue it with you. Too many other people know otherwise."

YOu got a point? then make it - just put it in it's own thread.

[kristopher]

45. Biofuels have extremely limited applicability

You wrote "They are not saying allocation of input energy to all end products is not appropriate, just that allocating using caloric content of coproducts (a measurement of food nutritional value) is not a good meassure of energy content in a fuel context."

I, and many others, (see the responses to the Science article as well as the R-Squared blog discussion) do not agree that the energy value of the co-products is a meaningful metric in a discussion about the viability of ethanol as a fuel. The Farrell and Kammen article explains the efforts to standardize the disparate studies; note that they eliminate the human labor input (a significant cost in Brazil), but add the coproduct energy. This benefits the discussion about ethanol in only one meaningful way, it pads the numbers to make them look better. You'll have to forgive my skepticism, but this administration has done little to merit trust on any science related to a policy issue it values - such as energy.

It is the opinion of many that this is being done explicitly for political, not scientific, purposes. Since ethanol receives virtually all the funding for renewable energy, you cannot divorce the discussion on ethanol from the place it occupies as a political boondoogle. The opportunity costs of our dalliance with this limited use technology is enormous and must be a factor when evaluating the usefulness of developments such as the one claimed by ACTA.

Ethanol policy as it is currently crafted serves three purposes, none of them useful to anyone wanting to deal with climate change in the most expeditious way possible. 1) It is a handout to the farm/agribusiness lobby. 2) It serves to perpetuate the business as usual approach within the personal transportation sector by creating the impression that a major overhaul of the system isn't needed. 3) It preserves the status quo in electrical generation by denying money to the technologies and industries that stand ready and able to push coal out of the picture - something ethanol can't even do for petroleum.

You continue to claim that ethanol will reduce petroleum consumption; however, given the extremely low level of surplus energy that ethanol provides, and given that the vast majority of production under current policy is largely an exercise in storing fossil generated electric and petroleum energy, and given the extremely high opportunity costs of dedicating the bulk of our renewable energy $$ to ethanol production, the majority of people working in renewables analysis do not share your view that the costs are worth the extremely small (if any) reduction in petroleum use. I say "if any" because I firmly believe in paying a lot of attention to the Law of Unintended Consequences. That makes me suspect that item 2 in the previous paragraph is, in fact, going to result in more, not less petroleum usage as people resist changing their habits out of hope that the system will be salvaged.

[kristopher]

47. Came across this and thought you'd enjoy it.

Economic and environmental comparison of conventional,
hybrid, electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles

Abstract
Published data from various sources are used to perform economic and environmental comparisons of four types of vehicles: conventional,
hybrid, electric and hydrogen fuel cell. The production and utilization stages of the vehicles are taken into consideration. The comparison is based
on a mathematical procedure, which includes normalization of economic indicators (prices of vehicles and fuels during the vehicle life and driving
range) and environmental indicators (greenhouse gas and air pollution emissions), and evaluation of an optimal relationship between the types
of vehicles in the fleet. According to the comparison, hybrid and electric cars exhibit advantages over the other types. The economic efficiency
and environmental impact of electric car use depends substantially on the source of the electricity. If the electricity comes from renewable energy
sources, the electric car is advantageous compared to the hybrid. If electricity comes from fossil fuels, the electric car remains competitive only
if the electricity is generated on board. It is shown that, if electricity is generated with an efficiency of about 50–60% by a gas turbine engine
connected to a high-capacity battery and an electric motor, the electric car becomes advantageous. Implementation of fuel cells stacks and ion
conductive membranes into gas turbine cycles permits electricity generation to increase to the above-mentioned level and air pollution emissions to
decrease. It is concluded that the electric car with on-board electricity generation represents a significant and flexible advance in the development
of efficient and ecologically benign vehicles.
© 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TH1-4J2M1S8-2&_user=260508&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000015498&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=260508&md5=c12db164b9a159a0ed15c9698a44db25

It is a little out of date, in the past three years LIon has earned its spot on the list. So consider the hybrid and electric to be better as far as power/weight ratio W/ higher costs for the time being. There is also the mileage, the guy test driving a V2G at the university is getting 150 miles per charge. The manufacturer is testing whether people would want an auxiliary small gas engine to power a generator for longer distances.

[Fledermaus]

31. You really learn that way? Or is it a form of validation for extremely bad ideas and sloppy thinking

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x143939

[JohnWxy]

40. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,

adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

YOur rants are replete with nonsequitors and nonsense, bilious bombast and laughingly flawed disjointed anti-logic.

[JohnWxy]

9. ethanol used in ICEs is not intended to be the 'final' solution to fossil fuel usage.

The best answer for the foreseeable future is the fuel cell. But working with compresssed hydrogen gas is too expensive and dangerous to be practical. Fuel cells using hydrocarbons to deliver the fuel will be easier, safer and far cheaper. Ethanol as it turns, out is a good way to go as a supplier of hydrogen - much cleaner (very important in fuel cells) than gasoline. (ethylene glycol is also good with some advantages over ethanol)

But waiting until we have perfected and made the fuel cell practical is not an option. we cannot do nothing regarding fossil fuel usage until then.

Ford Motor co. has teamed with MIT researchers and is working on mass producing an ethanol enabled direct injection engine that achieves 25% to 30% reduction in fuel consumption. This engine uses 5% ethanol and 95% gasoline. This means, if all the cars on the road were using this engine we would reduce gasoliine usage and oil imports by 25-30% with a supply of ethanol equal to 5% of the total fuel supply. we should be producing 5% of the total fuel supply in ethanol in few years, just in time for Ford's target for mass production of this engine: 2011.

This reply is not meant to encourage you in offensive and off-the-mark tirades but to inform those who really want to be informed.

I guess I should thank you for giving me the opportunity to shoot down typical flawed arguments so oft presented on MSM and elsewhere (DU) by zealots possessed of more enthusiasm than good sense.

[kristopher]

13. Do you have a personal or financial stake in this engine?

[JohnWxy]

15. No. (If only!)

[JohnWxy]

11. Dale and Kim's (MSU) study.

http://www.eesi.org/briefings/Pre2003/07.31.02.brf_files/Allocation%20Procedures%20in%20Fuel%20Ethanol-Final.pdf

"The net energy, including transportation to consumers, is 0.56 MJnet/MJ
of ethanol from corn grain regardless of the ethanol production
technology employed."

In other words it takes .56 MJ to produceand deliver to the pump 1 MJ of energy in the ethanol._JW

"The net energy is cumulative energy, defined as energy consumed
in the fuel life cycle including the heat content of fuel
so that the energy quality is implicitly taken into account.
For instance, one MJ of electricity might be different from
one MJ from coal or another fossil fuel in terms of the energy
used because electricity requires more energy to generate
than it delivers at the end use. For example, the net energy
for electricity in the United States is 2.1 MJnet/MJ of
electricity <10>. This value indicates that 2.1 MJ of energy is
required to generate one MJ of electricity(my emphasis_JW)."


You'll note that Dale's definition of "NEt Energy" is the inverse of the commonly used term "Net Energy Balance" (energy in end product minus the energy required to produce it - divided by energy consumed to produce the end product). The Net Energy Balance of electricity would be: (1 -2.1)/2.1 or: -0.523809524


Then the Net Energy Balance of Ethanol from corn would be: (1-.56)/.56 or .7857


this post is offered by way of clarification of the comment above summarizing Kim and Dale's study.

[JohnWxy]

19. Shapouri's study. net energy balance of ehtnaol 1.67 or 67% net energy gain.

http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/net_energy_balance.pdf


"Table 4 presents the final net energy balance of corn ethanol adjusted for byproducts.
The net energy balance estimate for corn ethanol produced from wet-milling is 27,729
Btu per gallon, the net energy balance estimate for dry-milling is 33,196 Btu per gallon,
and the weighted average is 30,528 Btu per gallon. The energy ratio is 1.57 and 1.77 for
wet- and dry-milling, respectively, and the weighted average energy ratio is 1.67."

[kristopher]

4. In fact, if you take the time to study the first chart on page 2 of your link

You'll see that it supports my claim that the numbers quoted are a product of an attempt to manipulate public opinion.

The pink part is the energy required to produce the purple part, which represents end use fuel.

This propaganda piece is internally inconsistent, and invalid on its face due to an overabundance of ambiguity.

What is your economic interest in pushing an obviously flawed solution to our transportation energy needs?

[JohnWxy]

8. I agree with you this is an ambiguous chart. And a bad one!

(although, I dont' know where you get "pink" from the chart. I see pale blue green and maroon.

the third section (to the right) shows no energy content in the ethanol fuel - because there is no petroleum energy in the ethanol end product. the light green is the petroleum energy required to produce one BTU at the pump. The light green bar areas are smaller for ethanol than for gasoline - thus less petroleum energy is required to produce one BTU of ethanol at the pump than one BTU of gasoline at the pump. But there are no maroon areas for ethanol because ethanol contains no petroleum energy.

but this is a bad chart. Pretty confusing. No doubt about it.

[Zachstar]

5. Until "scientific research" makes ethanol from grass and wood chips it is useless and just sucks

The fantasy of Ethanol is a destructive one outside of replacing fuel additives. Corn/sugar/wahtever is being grown to be put into fuel plants that take in more energy (when you combine all it took to grow the corn) then they pump out as fuel.

Don't give me some damn report. The only evidence needed is HUGE spikes in corn prices and massive increases in deforestation as people in tropical regions scramble to get a piece of the action.

[kristopher]

21. Some basic questions

It is a very attractive idea to think that we can satisfy our voracious
appetite for inexpensive liquid fuel from a renewable resource such as corn.
But is it justified? Is the large-scale domestic production of corn based ethanol going to provide “energy independence” from foreign oil as claimed, as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions, revitalize the farm belt, keep the U.S. economy growing, and replace the global decline in petroleum production with the advent of Peak Oil?

Does ethanol production actually result in significantly (1.67:1 is not ‘significant’) more energy available to do work than the energy required to produce it?

What impact does the use of corn for ethanol have on the supply and cost of food?

Is there sufficient water available to produce ethanol on a large scale?

What is the impact of ethanol production on soil fertility?

What is the impact of ethanol production on forests?

Does ethanol reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants?

What is the impact of ethanol production on the poor and on indigenous peoples?

Does ethanol production make economic sense?

Taken from 'The False Promise of Biofuels"

[JohnWxy]

27. read links provided.

[kristopher]

29. They don't answer the questions

"It is a very attractive idea to think that we can satisfy our voracious
appetite for inexpensive liquid fuel from a renewable resource such as corn.
But is it justified? Is the large-scale domestic production of corn based ethanol going to provide “energy independence” from foreign oil as claimed, as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions, revitalize the farm belt, keep the U.S. economy growing, and replace the global decline in petroleum production with the advent of Peak Oil?

Does ethanol production actually result in significantly (1.67:1 is not ‘significant’) more energy available to do work than the energy required to produce it?

What impact does the use of corn for ethanol have on the supply and cost of food?

Is there sufficient water available to produce ethanol on a large scale?

What is the impact of ethanol production on soil fertility?

What is the impact of ethanol production on forests?

Does ethanol reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants?

What is the impact of ethanol production on the poor and on indigenous peoples?

Does ethanol production make economic sense?"

[poopfuel]

36. all these answers and more can be found here

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

Enjoy and keep an open mind.

[JohnWxy]

32. Some of the questions you copied from the book need a new thread of their own.

nonetheless I'll point out those which do have answers at some of the links provided (can't you do anythinig for yourself hamster?).

Does ethanol reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants? "yes"
Wang and Farrell & Kammen answered this. Corn based ethanol 23% reduction, cellulosic 64% reduction.

http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/News/2005/NCGA_Ethanol_Meeting_050823.ppt#444,14,Slide 14


Does ethanol production make economic sense? "yes" all the links provided, but you have to read them.

I'll mention something about the affect on food prices although this is a big topic and deserves a thread of it's own.

As I pointed out before Wheat has gone up in price at least as much as corn and nobody is making biofuel from wheat. Soy has gone up as much and only a miniscule amount is being used to make bio-diesel. There is an enormous increase in demand for food and ethanol is a part of it, but I think the increased wealth of people in developing nations (in particular China and India) and poor weaather conditions the last couple of years is by far the biggest factor.

The protein part of the corn is recovered and sold to stock producers as high grade feed supplement which replaces (and is better than feed lot corn). No loss to food supply.

Regardintg land use changes Wang provided a critique of study done by Searchinger:
http://awakeatthewheel.net/category/energy-balance/

The other questions really demand a thread of their own and you should start it. but you might be expected to make a point which probably would require you to read that book or some articles (pro and con), are you up to that?

[kristopher]

33. Wang's reply is much like his work, deceptive.

Take the first point-counterpoint:
Point: "Searchinger et al. modeled a case in which U.S. corn ethanol production increased from 15 billion gallons a year to 30 billion gallons a year by 2015.

Counterpoint: However, in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), Congress established an annual corn ethanol production cap of 15 billion gallons by 2015. Congress established the cap - based on its awareness of the resource limitations for corn ethanol production - to help prevent dramatic land use changes.

Thus, Searchinger et al. examined a corn ethanol production case that is not directly relevant to U.S. corn ethanol production in the next seven years.

My response: Here, as in his original claims, Wang gets the result he wants by playing with the boundaries. The basic question is not constrained to ethanol production over the next 7 years. The basic question is what is the potential of biofuels to relieve our dependence on (imported) fossil fuels in the transportation sector?

By trying to dismiss the outcome of Searchinger's in this manner, Wang confirms what was previously only a matter of speculation - he is willing to dissemble and prevaricate in order to support this failed policy.

The point again is simple: The (dubious) 67% gain for ethanol on energy invested IS NOT GOOD WHEN COMPARED TO A 2000% - to 5000% (and headed higher) GAIN with solar, wind or other renewables.

What is it about that point that you do not understand? 67% with fudged numbers, or 2000%-5000% and rising rapidly?

67% with fudged numbers, or 2000%-5000% and rising rapidly?

67% with fudged numbers, or 2000%-5000% and rising rapidly?

67% with fudged numbers, or 2000%-5000% and rising rapidly?

My what a difficult choice...

[Fledermaus]

34. 2000% to 5000% where did you get those numbers?

2000% to 5000% where did you get those numbers?

2000% to 5000% where did you get those numbers?

2000% to 5000% where did you get those numbers?

[Fledermaus]

35. I could charge a battery with 100 watt-hours and then only get 65 watt-hours back driving

an electric car or I could put 100 watt-hours into ethanol production with an EROI of 8.

Hmmm, I think I'll take the 800 watt-hours please.

Or harvesting wood and making wood chips has an EROI of 26 and making cord wood has an EROI of over 30.

Hmmm, perhaps I will take 3,000+ watt-hours instead.

By the way the EROI of oil is only 20.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

41. The issues are clear

We are looking for a solution to our energy problems, and transportation is only one element of the entire picture. Ethanol does not solve our transportation sector problem, nor does it solve any other related problems. It returns too little energy for the energy invested for it to be a valid means of gathering surplus energy.

The fudge factor has been pointed out to you many times before yet you continue to act like it is something you couldn't possibly know. So, one more time from your link: Allocation Procedure in Ethanol Production System from Corn Grain by Seungdo Kim and Bruce E. Dale on page 6: ""In the allocation based on energy content, which uses the energy contents of ethanol and its coproducts, the dry milling system gets a 39-percent coproduct net energy credit, and wet milling has a 43-percent coproduct credit. The disadvantage of this method is that the calories of coproducts,a measurement of food nutritional value, are not a good measurement of energy in a fuel context."

That returns the EROEI of ethanol to the 1.2:1 value that is the accepted norm.

The environmental effects of ethanol are on a scale with other farming activities; if you don't think such agribusiness isn't an environmental problem related to land and water use, I'm not going to argue it with you. Too many other people know otherwise.

What we are searching for isn't someting to lower gasoline prices and it isn't something to augment the current supply of gasoline; what we are looking for is a total replacement for gasoline and diesel in the transportation sector. In order for ethanol to be self sufficient and deliver enough fuel for this nation's personal transportation sector, it would need to deliver on the order of 400,000,000 gallons of gasoline for transportation use each and every day. That means that with a 1.2:1 return rate and relying on ethanol as the source of input energy, we must actually produce some 2,000,000,000 gallons of ethanol each and every day, 365 days per year. That's 730,000,000,000 gal/year. Allowing for the input from sunlight, we fractionally better of, so lets call it 600,000,000,000 gallons per year. That means devoting about 1.2 billion acres to farm for ethanol production. Otherwise, we are using coal generated electricity as input, since we are spending all our money on ethanol and have none left over to develop other renewables.

Now, we could do all of that for transportation. We could....

But do we want to?

The answer is no, we don't want to. Why not?

Because we get a much larger return on energy invested if we put it into wind, solar, wave/tidal/current, and geothermal.

Led by wind, any and all of those give a return on invested energy thousands of times higher than biofuels. They also serve other needs besides the transportation sector.

The personal transportation sector is best served with battery electric in a Vehicle to Grid (V2G) configuration. Nmh and especially LIon is currently deployed in a number of hybrids and Tesla's roadster is 100% battery electric. Several pilot programs are deploying fleets of corporate, electric only V2G vehicles to confirm the amount they can contribute to grid stability. With large scale deployment of the V2G technology in the private sector, the costs of integrating renewables into the grid plummets dramatically, while simultaneously increasing overall grid reliability and dramatically decreasing overall costs of electricity to all sectors.

With clean grid energy we can use biofuels as they are best suited - to operate the heavy machinery of life that requires the extreme energy density and portability of liquid fuels. Serving only that portion of the transportation sector should be possible without destroying ourselves in the process.

[madokie]

42. My oh my

[JohnWxy]

49. YOur personal attacks on Michael Wang's character and body of work are typically rediculous and

of course wrong.

Wang is regarded within private industry, the academia and government as one of the top authorities with regard to evaluating fuel efficiencies and emisssions. He was responsible for the creation of the GREET (The Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation Model). The GREET model has been recognized by the Society of Automotive Engineers as http://www.transportation.anl.gov/software/GREET/greet_gold_standard.html">"the gold standard" for well-to-wheel analyses of vehicle/fuel systems.

"Already, more than 5,600 GREET users in both the public and private sectors (including researchers in government agencies, the auto industry, the energy industry, research institutes, universities, and public interest groups) are registered throughout North America, Europe, and Asia."

If Wangs' work has been deceptive all these pretty sharp people are very confused. Maybe we should call them up and tell them to get in touch with you so you can straighten them all out.:rofl: :woohoo: :rofl:



as for Wang's critique of http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/letter_to_science_anldoe_03_14_08.pdf">Searchinger's study he states:

"Searchinger et al. modeled a case in which U.S. corn ethanol production increased from 15
billion gallons a year to 30 billion gallons a year by 2015. However, in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), Congress established an annual corn ethanol production cap of 15 billion gallons by 2015. Congress established the cap — based on its awareness of the resource limitations for corn ethanol production — to help prevent dramatic land use changes. Thus, Searchinger et al. examined a corn ethanol production case that is not directly relevant to U.S. corn ethanol production in the next seven years (that is until 2017)."_(my emphasis_JW)

These are Searchinger's own stated limits. Wang, in critiqueing Searchinger's study does have to stick to ... Searchinger's chosen parameters. this is not deceptiveness, it's a disciplined and rational critique of a study.

WAng also states:


"Many critical factors determine GHG emission outcomes of land use changes. First, we need to
clearly define a baseline for global food supply and demand and cropland availability without the
U.S. biofuel program. It is not clear to us what baseline Searchinger et al. defined in their
modeling study."

Such sloppiness (?) would be unacceptable in a paper in a graduate seminar. In scientific endeavors others must be able to test your results. and to do that they have to know your beginning values for scenarios, formulas or simulations. THis kind of sloppiness is suspect indeed.

Wang further states:


" Searchinger et al. also assumed that distillers’ grains and solubles (DGS) from corn ethanol
plants would displace corn on a pound-for-pound basis. The one-to-one displacement ratio
between DGS and corn fails to recognize that the protein content of DGS is much higher than
that of corn (28% vs. 9%). The actual displacement value of DGS is estimated to be at least 23%
higher than that assumed by Searchinger et al. (Klopfenstein et al. 2008)."

Again, sloppiness (?) that could have easily been precluded by doing just a little fact finding - before rushing to a (desired?) judgement.


WAng goes on to state:


"Searchinger et al. had to decide what land use changes would be needed in Brazil, the United
States, China, and India to meet their simulated requirement for 10.8 million hectares of new
crop land. With no data or modeling, Searchinger et al. used the historical land use changes that
occurred in the 1990s in individual countries to predict future land use changes in those countries
(2015 and beyond)(my emphasis--JW). This assumption is seriously flawed by predicting deforestation in the Amazon and conversion of grassland into crop land in China, India, and the United States. The fact is, deforestation rates have already declined through legislation in Brazil and elsewhere. In China, contrary to the Searchinger et al. assumptions, efforts have been made in the past ten years to convert marginal crop land into grassland and forest land in order to prevent soil erosion and other environmental problems.

Again, incredibly poor procedures for a study seeking to be taken seriously.


Wang again:


"The Searchinger et al. study demonstrated that indirect land use changes are much more difficult
to model than direct land use changes. To do so adequately, researchers must use general
equilibrium models that take into account the supply and demand of agricultural commodities,
land use patterns, and land availability (all at the global scale), among many other factors.(my emphasis_JW) Efforts have only recently begun to address both direct and indirect land use changes (see Birur et al. 2007). At this time, it is not clear what land use changes could occur globally as a result of U.S. corn ethanol production. While scientific assessment of land use change issues is urgently needed in order to design policies that prevent unintended consequences from biofuel production, conclusions regarding the GHG emissions effects of biofuels based on speculative, limited land use change modeling may misguide biofuel policy development.



AND further with regard to deceptive argument you threw our numbers " A 2000% - to 5000% (and headed higher) GAIN with solar, wind or other renewables." Without offering documetnation or showing computations. THis runs the risk of looking deceptive.

I have been a proponent of wind and solar for quite a while (before satarting to post to DU) but you can't throw out unsupported numbers without looking like you are being deceptive (solar shows great promise FOR THE FUTURE but it has a ways to go before becoming COST EFFECTIVE).

ALSO, TO REPEAT FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME THE CONNECTION BETWEEN SOLAR and WIND POWER GENERATION AND TRANSPORTATION USES REQUIRES TWO EVENTUALITIES WHICH ARE YET TO BE REALIZED. SIGNIFICANT PENETRATION BY WIND ANDOR SOLAR INTO THE POWER GENERATION MARKET - SOMETHING WHICH IS A NUMBER OF YEARS IN THE FUTURE. THE SECOND IS AFFORDABLE PLUG-IN AND BATTERY OPERATED CARS WHICH ARE STILL NOT AN AFFORDABLE REALITY. Now, Toyota andor Honda may have plug-ins in a few years but we wont' have green power from wind for them to recharge with for quite a while. YOU EITHER CANNOT UNDERSTAND THIS OR DON'T WANT TO UNDERSTAND IT.


I realize you're having fun seeing your words on the computer screen but you really should try to leave these subjects to those who can handle them.

(I hope I haven't hurt your feelings so as you run tothe administrator and ask himto erase my message. Think YOU can take a little criticism or is that just left to those you disagree with.).

QED


(I wonder how long this one will stay up?)

[Fledermaus]

30. Ethanol will not poison a fuel cell like fossil fuels.

Poisoning by Contamination

Fuel cells can be "poisoned" (experience severe degradation in performance) by different types of molecules. Because of the difference in electrolyte, operating temperature, catalyst and other factors, different molecules can behave differently in different fuel cells. The major poison for all types of fuel cells is sulfur-containing compounds such as hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and carbonyl sulfide (COS). Sulfur compounds are naturally present in all fossil fuels, and small quantities remain after normal processing and must be almost completely removed prior to entering the fuel cell.

http://www.fctec.com/fctec_basics.asp

And gasoline has an EROI of 5. Sugarcane ethanol 8 and state of the art corn ethanol 5.

Acctually gasoline has an energy balace of less than one. Only ethanol has a posative energy balance.

[madokie]

39. That is good news

I would love to have an ethanol powered fuel cell running our home. Just the sound of it sounds like music to these old ex-alky's ears. I can hear it now, nope, I don't drink anymore but my house sure does or my car does ;-) :rofl: hell my computer is drunk off its ass :rofl:

[losthills]

46. Wow... Dueling sockpuppets...

:popcorn:

[Nihil]

48. I have my problems with you at times ...

... but that made me laugh out loud!
:spray: