One reason we need to pursue every potential avenue in trying to achieve greater energy independence (and save the planet) is that some of the things we try are going to fail. Others are going to turn out to be bad ideas. The sooner we know that, the better.
Most of us now know that about ethanol. But in case you thought that the only reason why it’s a bad idea is that converting cropland to growing energy instead of food leads to famine for millions and higher food prices for everybody else (as if that weren’t enough), Venkat Laksmi provided a more complete list for us today on our op-ed page. An excerpt:
…Ethanol is not a long hydrocarbon chain like gasoline, and as a
result it is only two-thirds as efficient as gasoline. In other words,
a gallon of ethanol will provide two-thirds of the energy of a gallon
of gasoline. Ethanol mixes with water, which is not the case with
gasoline, which means the transportation systems used for gasoline
(i.e. pipelines and trucks) cannot be used for ethanol.Additionally,
there is a lot of inefficiency in the production of ethanol. For
example, corn-based ethanol requires 54 percent of the energy to
process the corn into ethanol and 24 percent to grow the corn. As a
result, there is a return of only 30 percent or so of the energy,
making this inefficient as compared to conventional gasoline, which
produces five times the energy required to produce it, and even
biodiesel, with its 93 percent efficiency. Even though biodiesel is
efficient, it has a long way to go for large-scale production….
Related Posts
Gee… the same things we posted here months ago about ethanol lacking the latent energy of gasoline, getting less miles per gallon, costing too much energy to produce…etc.
And there are a lot more problems than just the few detailed my Mr. Venkat Laksmi.
Biodiesel also has more problems, notably in corrosion of engines and tailpipe pollution gases.
No, Ethanol alone is not the only answer. A single fuel source is not the answer- fuel diversity- “flex-fuel” is. Methanol and bio-diesel can both be utilized in a flex-fuel program. Hybrid electricity in conjunction with the above greatly enhances the rate of consumption. biomass and nuclear energy plants, and even the prospect of algae fuels offer a greater diversity of resources to power our nation’s economy, and maximize the most scrupulous, efficient usage of our remaining fossil resources for the many things that we need aside from fuel that cannot be made very well from alternatives (such as high-grade plastics).
“Ethanol is not a long hydrocarbon chain like gasoline, and as a result it is only two-thirds as efficient as gasoline.”
Yes, This is a central problem with Mr. Lakshmi’s thesis: ethanol is renewable, whereas Gasoline is not.
“For example, corn-based ethanol requires 54 percent of the energy to process the corn into ethanol and 24 percent to grow the corn. As a result, there is a return of only 30 percent or so of the energy, making this inefficient as compared to conventional gasoline, which produces five times the energy required to produce it”
Yes, the energy required to grow the corn is largely due to cultivation methods. Cellulose-based ethanol utilized non-food sources, and can be grown on marginal land, and require fqar less water than corn. Such an approach- switchgrass, for example-does not require the use of fertilizers and pesticides.
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/v5-017.html
Secondly, the rosy production of gasoline is based on “Light” and “Sweet” varieties of Crude, such as WTI, of which we have a very limited supply. I wonder if Mr. Lakshmi would like to re-calculate those figures using the “heavy sour” crude available in ANWR, which is nowhere near as efficient to process into fuels.
Unfortunately, the nay-sayer reactionaries like Herr Müller really don’t have an effective, sustainable, long-term solution for the problem.
1. You don’t know what solutions we engineers have to problems.
2. You don’t seem to have much technical understanding, not enough to define the problems.
Zzazzeefrazzee – you write: Unfortunately, the nay-sayer reactionaries like Herr Müller really don’t have an effective, sustainable, long-term solution for the problem.
Actually, there’s a glide-path to sustainability that will develop as a result of the interplay between needs and technology. We don’t know all the components right now, but a free market will develop them. I say that because the solution will be the result of thousands of smart folks developing the bits and pieces that will lead to a future of bountiful energy.
So I will digress.
Whatever cultivation methods are used, corn will remain “expensive” as a fuel because it’s susceptible to blight and bugs, and requires a whole lot of energy, whether fertile soil or fertilizer, to grow. Harnessing a plant — a weed — that grows durn near anywhere, think kudzu, would be better, but there are challenges, not just chemical, but in the manpower-intensive harvesting.
Something else you need to keep straight: diesel engines use compression ignition and are thus distinctly different from Otto-cycle engines which use a spark plug for ignition.
This is important when talking flex-fuel because an Otto-cycle engine can run on ethanol, methanol, gasoline, hydrogen, or natural gas. The same engine could run any or all those fuels with existing technologies, although “packaging” the storage devices in a reasonably-sized vehicle would be a challenge.
A diesel requires a heavier fuel (and more energy-laden) fuel that’s generally dirtier (greater particulate matter). But since all the possible fuels that suit a diesel fit into the same type of tank, packaging is easier (although emissions control is trickier and may require that you pee into an auxiliary tank to keep it running clean). Diesel engines cannot run on the fuels that a flex-fuel Otto-cycle can.
Back to the glide-path. If we can build sufficient nuclear, wind, and solar power-generating plants to quench our stationary energy requirements, that frees up natural gas for heating (and cooking) and mobility while reducing the need for oil for heating. Keep in mind that the key for the stationary power-generating is to encourage (through investment tax credits or whatever) excess capacity to generate hydrogen during off-peak periods. The hydrogen can meet transportation requirements and be used as a fuel for existing vehicles with Otto-cycle engines with straightforward and inexpensive conversion kits. Well, you lose most of your trunk to the canister that will hold the compressed hydrogen gas, so you’ll have to put the golf clubs on the roof. Over time hydrogen can replace natural gas and even be pumped through the same transmission lines to serve heating / cooking needs.
So that’s the glide-path. I don’t know how long it is, but guys like Pickens and T.J. Rodgers will grow rich by making energy cheap. McCain won’t, Obama won’t, but the aforementioned folks and others will become the new Westinghouses and Edisons.
Mike, all good points.
“Harnessing a plant — a weed — that grows durn near anywhere, think kudzu, would be better, but there are challenges, not just chemical, but in the manpower-intensive harvesting.”
Sure, but it’s still renewable. YEs, kudzu would be labor intensive, but for switch grass, etc prevailing agricultural techniques have come a long way to address harvesting this.
In any case, is the rate of inefficiency here really so awful when compared to refining a heavy, sour crude?
This is one reason that I think algae-coal symbiotic production would be helpful solution to meet some of our needs.
The flex-fuel program obviously doesn’t need to mix diesel with alcohol fuels. methanol and ethanol is also a flex fuel option.
Thanks. They are far more cogent than Lee’s reactionary ad hominem, red herring, straw man, and hasty generalization fallacies, along with his useless rhetorical posturing. Too bad we can’t harvest HIM and put all of his hot air to good use!
Not to quibble for the sake of quibbling, but “renewable” is misleading. Corn is as renewable as an oak (apart from the oak’s fruit, acorns) is when compared to the fruit of a peach or a fig tree. (Relatives on my mom’s side came from the farming community of Streator, IL and I spent a fair amount of time down their in my youth, so I want to be true to my roots.)
Corn has to be planted anew annually, so I don’t know that it’s “renewable” in the sense that cane or bananas or kudzu. Botany is not my strong suit, but I think that renewable sources of energy would be perennials like the nut-producing plants used for biodiesel as opposed to a grass like corn.
For several years, I have advocated a four part energy policy for South Carolina. The plan is simple, and can be adapted to any region.
1. Conservation
2. Capture waste (steam, heat, methane)
3. Local resources (poultry fat, pine pulp, sweet potato, cane, solar, tidal currents, nuclear, kudzu, algae)
4. Non-local resources (corn, oil)
Even before the ethanol craze, South Carolina imported the vast majority of corn needed to feed livestock (poultry are two of the top three SC farm products.) And here we are now, saddled with another taxpayer subsidized program that is making things worse instead of better.
We need leadership in this state that doesn’t just hop on a bandwagon, but is at the front of the parade with creative innovations and solutions that benefit South Carolina first. The good news is that we have all the ingredients necessary for success.
Put Your State On Your Plate!
Emile
Emile,
With the high cost of truck shipping, I expect to see a lot less peaches shipped here from California, and a lot more truck crops produced by local farmers.
Air-freighted foreign seafood will become even more expensive and rare.
HI, ALL THIS CRAP ABOUT FUEL, NO MATTER WHAT FORM IT COMES IN. WE WENT THROUGH THIS PROBLEM, OVER AND OVER BEFORE, NOW ITS EVEN MORE DEPERATE. WE, THE WEST, SHOULD HAVE HAD A PLAN 30-40 YEARS AGO. I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE, WITH ALL THE BRAIN POWER THAT WE STILL POSSESS, THAT WE COULD NOT GET THE BALL ROLLING WITH NEW POWER SOURCES. HOW ABOUT HYDROGEN, THE SUN RUNS ON IT. HEY SMART PEOPLE, GET YOUR FINGER OUT AND ROLL UP YOUR SLEEVES, ITS TIME!!!
BILL SAXON.
“Corn has to be planted anew annually, so I don’t know that it’s “renewable” in the sense that cane or bananas or kudzu. ”
Mike, have I once emphasized corn? Or is your quibblin an attempt at a Straw man? Or even a red herring?
If anything, I have mentioned cellulose derived from switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), which is, in fact, a perennial.
While Retired Cornell Professor David Pimentel (who is actually an entomologist) panned the production of ethanol a few years ago, his own colleagues have stridently disagreed:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/March08/biofuels.lab.lm.html
While Pimentel’s report has been quoted ad nauseum by so-called “ethanol de-bunkers” like Mr. Laksmi, Michael Graboski, Research Professor in the Department of Chemical Engineering at Colorado School of Mines has shown that Pimental’s report was based on flawed, out of date agricultural data, including a 1979 estimate for the energy used to manufacture ethanol of 70,000 BTU/gal. Graboski pointed to his own USDA study in 1995 that attained very different, favorable results compared to those of Pimentel.
http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html
If ethanol were more economical than gasoline, it wouldn’t need such huge subsidies from government.
Senators like Tom Daschle and other from the Corn Belt put the most recent subsidies into the annual Farm Bills.
this is some good information thanks