USDA 2004 study concludes ethanol yields 67% more energy than is consumed

[JohnWxy]

in producing it:

USDA study findings support earlier research that determined ethanol has a positive net energy balance, according to the National Corn Growers Association. That research was conducted by USDA, Michigan State University, the Colorado School of Mines, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and other public and private entities. A USDA study released in 2004 found that ethanol may net as much as 67% more energy than it takes to produce.

[Canuckistanian]

1. Hallelujah!

Another RW talking point killed.

Now let's look at the viability of oil without all of IT'S subsidies and tax breaks and see if it's "worth it".

[JohnWxy]

2. A 1997 analysis by the New York Times concluded gas actually

costs about $5.00 a gallon. That was 1997 before we invaded Iraq!

[Oerdin]

25. I don't believe that at all.

Such a claim requires some sort of proof to back it up.

[mike_c]

3. that's all well and good, but fossil petroleum currently yields...

...several hundred times the total primary productivity of the earth-- in other words, every year of fossil fuel consumption burns several CENTURIES worth of biofuel production, even if all of the earth's productivity were turned to biofuel production. That isn't to say that ethanol isn't a good step, just that there will NEVER be an ethanol energy economy unless it is a tiny fraction of humanity's current energy economy. Right now there is no route to a sustainable energy economy that doesn't involve VERY DRAMATIC reduction of energy demand-- in essence reduction to early twentieth century consumption levels or further. We really need to face that.

[Canuckistanian]

7. Excellent point

Biofuels are not the total answer.

I've heard of studies that say biofuels are best suited for certain activities only, to make it productive and profitable.

[rustydad]

21. Biomass

We use every year in fossil fuels energy the energy equivilant of all the biomass energy including animal and plant produced over 400 years. Replacement of any significant fossil fule energy by biomass is a mass delusion. Population reduction and massive reduction in per person energy use is the only answer.....if there is an answer. bob

[JohnWxy]

27. The Sad Case of Tommy the Turd

THe Story of Tommy the Turd


Oak Ridge National Laboratory study concludes ethanol can supply 30% of demand for transportation fuel:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=38006

The Global Resources Council has said that energy crops like Switch Grass can produce 2 to 3 times as much ethanol as corn based ethanol. I don't think the ORN study took into account energy crops.

[rockymountaindem]

4. Nevermind n/t

[Dead_Parrot]

5. That's good news...

...out of interest, was that with crops grown using oil-based fertilizer?

[mike_c]

6. yes it was...

...although the general conclusion still isn't necessarily generally applicable. The primary energy inputs were agricultural energy subsidies and solar flux, and the conclusion was essentially that ethanol production captured a greater proportion of the solar flux than was "spent" up front in energy subsidies, combined with processing energy costs at the back end. That's obviously a good thing. But this depends on the balance between solar flux, biomass yield, and the necessary subsidy. Try doing the same thing in Patagonia and it won't work. The reasons are obvious, and that's an extreme example, but it illustrates the point that many are missing-- the outcome can be considerably worse under less productive growing conditions-- and perhaps better under others, but the productivity curve does flatten out so that the best possible yields might not be sufficient to offset the overall drag of the worst yields by very much.

[Dead_Parrot]

9. Hmmm

I'll hold off waving my little flag for the moment, then :)

[Boomer]

14. Yeah, what Dead_Parrot said

As has been noted in other articles on this DU forum, we are near the limits of arable land on the planet. The productive agricultural yields that have sustained our 5+ billion population are heavily reliant on petroleum-based fertilizers to replenish the soil which we are robbing at record rates.

Meanwhile, growing climate instability is threatening to reduce those agricultural yields as various areas experience above-average drought/rain/cold/heat/storms. Not to mention increased insect predation, also due to climate change. And then there is just plain old drought due to overuse of water resources for water-intensive crops.

So you want a biofuel? Be careful what you wish for. If biofuels turn out to be viable replacement for oil, then eventually governments will use land for growing energy in favor of growing food crops and beef for the populace. The end result will be astronomical food prices for the average person, and still not enough fuel to go around.

[Vogon_Glory]

8. Sugar Cane And Fuel Cells

Of course, I'm wondering what the figures would be for sugar cane. The world price for sugar dropped a while back and knocked a lot of sugar cane producers (Including many Cuban and Central American centrales)as well as sugar beet growers out of business.

Unfortunately, I'm a liberal arts major. I have heard tell of fuel cells powered by ethanol. I bet that that would drive the energy return figures even higher.

[skids]

10. Sugar cane is for Portugal.

We can't grow it here. There are other crops better than corn, though.

For a more thorough study (actually a review of prior studies) see here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x40742

[Dogmudgeon]

11. Portugal? Shirley, you jest!

Portugal is turning into a desert at a rapid pace. So is Spain, just in case somebody says that sugar can can be grown there.

The god news is that sugar cane is also grown in the Carribbean. Perhaps we'll have to add Haiti and Puerto Rico to the Axis of Evil.

That was a good link you posted last week, too. Unfortunately, Our Dear Leaders have been sitting on the studies, their hands, and the money to get the job done. That's a pretty tough position to maintain with their heads up their asses.

--p!

[skids]

16. Uhm, forgive me it was late.

I ehem, meant Brazil. :blush:

[Vogon_Glory]

12. Can't Grow It Here? Are You Quite Sure Of That?

We can't grow sugar cane here? Are you quite sure of that? I'm from Texas and know that sugar cane continues to be grown not only in Florida (highly subsidized of course) and parts of Louisiana. Sugar cane can also be grown in the Caribbean. I agree that there are probably more suitable crops than corn.

The reason I brought this up is not to trash you but to promote the idea that the shift towards renewable fuel sources should be world-wide, not just by the US and some of the wealthier industrialized countries.

One of the current political attacks on renewable energy by the fossil fuel industry, the Saudis, and the American right-wing is the phony model of renewable energy only in one country. That model needs to be denounced as a sham and a lie.

[Boomer]

13. Florida, eh?

Otherwise known as Ground Zero for Climate Change. The entire Atlantic and Gulf area is going to prove difficult to exploit for oil or sugar as hurricane intentisity grows and coastal areas are submerged by rising oceans. So there will be some very practical limitations on just how much sugar cane could be grown for any purpose.

[Dead_Parrot]

22. How about sugar beet?

It's grown in the UK, so should grow OK in a large chunk of the US. I don't know what the yeild is per acre, though...

[phantom power]

15. Let me get this straight...

The optimistic scenario is that EROEI is 1.67?

[mike_c]

17. yes, although in fairness this could probably be improved somewhat...

...but never on a scale that could even scratch the surface of fossil petroleum energy output. I think people forget that even nineteenth century post-industrial revolution energy budgets either deforested entire nations or were based on fossil fuels. Deforestation harvested decades to centuries of primary production for relatively short term use, and that was at a time when the population was smaller AND per capita energy comsumption was a fraction of today's.

[phantom power]

18. Ouch. That's really going to leave biofuels marginal, isn't it?

It sort of renews my conviction that we will need to manufacture fuels, using energy from wind power, or nuclear, or what-have-you.

[phantom power]

19. So, if I have my math straight...

0.67 / 1.67 => 0.40

So, in a hypothetical "steady-state" ethanol economy, for every 100 gallons of ethanol produced, about 60 gallons of it must be used to make more ethanol, and the remaining 40 gallons can be used for actually running civilization.

[mike_c]

20. yep-- and that's why there will never be an ethanol economy....

It's not viable except at near neolithic energy consumption levels. I definitely think there is a place for biofuels, but it will always be very marginal. The most telling numbers are the estimates of the gulf between current primary production CAPACITY and the current energy yield from fossil petroleum. This is worth revisiting periodically:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/06/worse-than-fossil-fuel/

In 2003, the biologist Jeffrey Dukes calculated that the fossil fuels we burn in one year were made from organic matter “containing 44×10¹⁸ grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary productivity of the planet’s current biota.”(1) In plain English, this means that every year we use four centuries’ worth of (all the Earth's) plants and animals.

Parenthetical addition was mine-- mike_c

Even if the numbers are only correct to within an order of magnitude, biofuels production CANNOT provide any significant relief to an energy budget based on current consumption levels. It is simply not possible without bioengineering on a planetary scale. Algal reactors have been cited as a solution, but while they might boast significantly higher EROEI than 1.67, they will never approach anything close to 44×10¹⁸ g carbon. They will never approach even one percent of that production level, IMO.

[JohnWxy]

24. For corn based ethanol. Gasoline is a negative 19%

It takes 1.23 BTUs consumed to produce 1 BTU of gasoline.

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

[phantom power]

26. I can only assume that figure "starts" with crude oil.

Because crude oil has an enormous EROEI. Far, far higher than 1. (For now...)

[iconoclastNYC]

23. And this from corn? When we make it from Algae it will be even better.