NPR - Corn Ethanol worse than oil

[cannon_fodder]

Yet another argument against corn-based ethanol.  A new published (read: peer reviewed) study by researchers from Princeton University concluded that the aggregate effect on global farming of producing ethanol on formerly food producing land is worse than burning oil.  

As the US turns it's breadbasket crop into an energy producer the price of corn and other foods goes up (anyone buy meat or dairy products lately?).  As the price goes up developing countries have an incentive to slash and burn areas and use them for agriculture.  The slash and burn releases a huge amount of pollution (CO2) and the resulting farmland is less efficient at producing food, often temporary, and the farming techniques are often harsher as a whole on the land (they do not have GPS guided electronically measured fertilizers).  On top of that, the bennefit of farrow land in reducing pollution is lost.

NPR story:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18784732

AP story:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gG6RDP96uZ_A1auof7LysRqbgDxAD8ULPD0G0

Add to that conflicting studies on the energy efficiency of corn-based ethanol: from a net loser to a high of a net gain of 30% (excluding to market transportation).  When MIT conducted a study they came up with "it depends" because an efficient tractor, distance to market, or poor yields can cause it to have a negative energy yield:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/ethanol.html

Then play with some economics numbers on food prices, redundant subsidies (farmers get direct subsidies THEN their crops get a market subsidy), effected industries (how long until the dairy subsidy increases to offset the added expense of the ethanol subsidy on corn prices) and the interest of competing technologies (ethanol saves the day, no need for hydrogen or electric cars!) and one has to seriously doubt the log term benefits of a corn-based ethanol policy.
- - -

On a related note, if someone wanted to get serious with encouraging new energy systems for transportation why not dangle a huge carrot out there:  The U.S. government will buy 5,000 alternative energy vehicles per year for 5 years from the company that can produce a route mail delivery vehicle that meets these requirements.

Or a wind turbine company could have a similar competition to run a number their trucks off of electricity (presumably or bragged to the public as running off their wind energy).  Or AEP.  Or Google.  I used the USPS because their daily drive distance might be more suitable for developing technology, but anyone with a fleet could easily put forth such an idea (which would amount to a challenge grant but would get something in return).

[Breadburner]

It's a joke, corn ethanol....Switch grass is where it's at.....

[Conan71]

Ethanol is nothing more than the latest extension corn belt subsidies of the 1970's.

Post-consumer and rendered animal fats along with diesel engines is where it's at for transportation.  

We've been converting plants over to have that capability in power burners for kilns, boilers, and direct-fire storage tanks for some time.

I heard RM on KRMG this morning.  The MET now offers cooking oil recycling.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

I think the answer is Methanol produced from Eucalyptus, its shown to produce 550 gigajoules of energy per hectare compared to only 70-120 for wheat, you can also make it with forestry waste. Ethanol is a total joke as a biofuel and does more harm than good.

Although long term its all about fuel cells and hydrogen.

[Breadburner]

Hydorgen is another joke.....

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by Breadburner

Hydorgen is another joke.....

Think of hydrogen power as more of a battery than an alternative energy source.  Instead of using batteries to store electricity (which lose a charge and wear out) we could use hydrogen cells (fueled from hydrogen created with electricity or from natural gas) and then generate electricity from them (the generation of electricity in the cell is very efficient).  The energy loss in creating and transferring hydrogen is currently a net loss over the amount lost in charging, storing, and discharging batteries.

So until a more efficient means of generating hydrogen is created it will remain more efficient to use batteries.  However, a hydrogen car would not suffer the range restrictions that currently hinder most electric cars and the fuel time would be comparable to gasoline vehicles.  So even if they don't get it AS efficient as battery technology (which of course keeps improving) the benefits of hydrogen might make it a viable transportation fuel.

Fuel cells are up to 60% efficient today, while gas engines are on the order of 25-30% with a long history of perfecting the technology.  With gas the drive train is then all mechanical and further losses occur plus the need for a catalytic converter (another 15%) - bringing the efficiency of a typical car to around 23%.  (23% of the energy in gas actually gets used to make your car go).  

DC electric motors are far more efficient than a drive train system (and less maintenance!) - but the production of hydrogen is at best 70% efficient (oil is in the 90s).  So a hydrogen car could theoretically be near 40% efficient.  Ignoring the pain in the donkey factor, technology gaps in fueling, and expense... they are already technically capable of being more efficient.

Damn, wish I would have kept track of all the different website I just pulled numbers from. Someone fill in the engineering gaps if they want.  []

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

I think the answer is Methanol produced from Eucalyptus, its shown to produce 550 gigajoules of energy per hectare compared to only 70-120 for wheat, you can also make it with forestry waste. Ethanol is a total joke as a biofuel and does more harm than good.

Although long term its all about fuel cells and hydrogen.

Might be a good idea for new technology autos, won't adapt well to existing.

I've had actual experience with methanol as a motor fuel.  It would be a pain in the donkey for every day drivers, there is a gelling problem in fuel lines, it's very corrosive, and it needs a top-end lubricant additive.  Benefits are a lower operating temp due to lower flash point, but you need higher compression to burn it effectively.  It also burns (as a comparable liquid volume) at a rate of roughly 1.3 to 1.5 times that of gasoline.

Also might want to see how much energy is consumed making it- last I knew destructive distillation- which takes a lot of Btus, was the only way to make methanol unless processes are changing.

Forest waste would placate the tree hugger crowd, virgin tree stock- not so much.

Interesting trivia- ever see a methanol fire?  Just about impossible to see unless it's dark, even then the flames are hard to see.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

I think the answer is Methanol produced from Eucalyptus, its shown to produce 550 gigajoules of energy per hectare compared to only 70-120 for wheat, you can also make it with forestry waste. Ethanol is a total joke as a biofuel and does more harm than good.

Although long term its all about fuel cells and hydrogen.

Might be a good idea for new technology autos, won't adapt well to existing.

I've had actual experience with methanol as a motor fuel.  It would be a pain in the donkey for every day drivers, there is a gelling problem in fuel lines, it's very corrosive, and it needs a top-end lubricant additive.  Benefits are a lower operating temp due to lower flash point, but you need higher compression to burn it effectively.  It also burns (as a comparable liquid volume) at a rate of roughly 1.3 to 1.5 times that of gasoline.

Also might want to see how much energy is consumed making it- last I knew destructive distillation- which takes a lot of Btus, was the only way to make methanol unless processes are changing.

Forest waste would placate the tree hugger crowd, virgin tree stock- not so much.

Interesting trivia- ever see a methanol fire?  Just about impossible to see unless it's dark, even then the flames are hard to see.

I'm just saying that in my personal opinion it'll be quite a while before battery and hydrogen catch up. And out of the biofuels Eucalyptus shows the highest potential yields. You would never grow Eucalyptus as anything other than a crop, you'd have fields of it coppiced, I think as long as people understand that you're not destroying virgin forests it would be ok. Forestry waste  I think could only ever be a small component on methanol, unless you lived in the forests of Canada.

Methanol does have more problems than Ethanol, but I think as a biofuel it shows much more potential if only with the yield increase on the land used. I think with some money spent on the problem of Methanol we could have a better solution than ethanol which may allow us to grow our way out of the problem, but in the process will starve people and need more oil.

I think if engines are designed around methanol and utilise the latest fuel efficiency standards you could get the same miles per gallon out of methanol..

Methanol costs around $11-13 per gigajoule in production costs compared to $10-15 for ethanol. So its not much more complex to make. I'm not a chemist so I'll have to check the distillation process and the possibilities. However if you did use destructive distillation you'd also have the added bonus of creating vast quantities of charcoal, an additional fuel that you could use in power stations.

[Conan71]

Si,

All good stuff, but what do we tell the numbies about what the carbon footprint is going to look like from all that? []

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Si,

All good stuff, but what do we tell the numbies about what the carbon footprint is going to look like from all that? []

The charcoal?

The carbon would be reabsorbed in the other trees waiting to be turned into methanol. It would only be bad if you cut down fresh forests for the charcoal and methanol and then didn't replant them.

[dggriffi]

I have serious doubts about the validity of these studies.   I haven't been able to read the details but the stories seem to lead me to believe that the carbon neutral state of ethanol is being ignored.

Also,  one major flaw by the girl from MIT is here 30% efficiency adjustment since gasoline contains more energy.   She leaves out any combustion engine efficiency coefficient which will throw here study completely off.  but i digress.


I find it very difficult to believe that the carbon used in a one time land conversion is some how greater than the carbon produced in the logistics of drilling and cracking which are ongoing.

[cannon_fodder]

dg, the entire point of the article was to look at the "carbon neutral" claim of corn-based ethanol. The study concluded that it has a net negative impact.  It certainly did not ignore those claims, it addressed them head one. No one claims it is carbon "neutral" as significant amounts of diesel, megawatts of electricity, and thousands of gallons of water are used to produce it.

I don't fully understand your argument about the efficiency.  Gasoline is MORE efficient in a combustion engine that ethanol.  So wouldn't that extrapolation only serve to strengthen her argument?

[dggriffi]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder


I don't fully understand your argument about the efficiency.  Gasoline is MORE efficient in a combustion engine that ethanol.  So wouldn't that extrapolation only serve to strengthen her argument?

Actually, Ethanol for transportation is more efficient than gasoline.   Most people make the mistake of assuming that since Gasoline has more energy that it is generally better.  Combustion engines are only about 40% efficient in the energy they are able to extract from  gasoline.  As ethanol has a lower burning temperature, ethanol engines can possesses higher compression ratios and therefore extract a much higher percentage of inherent energy,  thereby more efficiency.  


Also,   i just listened to the author of the first paper in this discussion and he explained that his study was really reviewing the carbon impact of corn based ethanol in which he may have a case.   I still think his numbers are wildly high.  The last time i did a calculation on farm land usage in the us vs ethanol, my estimate was that roughly one quarter of us farm land would need to be used to produce ethanol to  power us transportation(flex fuel).   The author felt that the destruction of forest land to grow corn would create a net lose but that we have around 135 million acres of land in America that have been over farmed and can now only grow such items as switch grass, which of course, is an excellent source of ethanol.



As for the carbon neutral discussion,  I believe these studies included the carbon released from ethanol when burned in the calculation when it should have been omitted.

[cannon_fodder]

Ahh, you are talking about E85 and 100% ethanol vehicles.  That is where you lost me but I now understand.  

Thank you.

[dggriffi]

sorry for the confusion.   I think the ultimate goal of an ethanol energy plan would be to move completely away from using Gasoline as a primary.  I think Brazil currently runs entirely on ethanol.

If we are to be serious about it we could use them as a test bed.


Also, I think there are a number of third world countries without any viable export.  These countries could easily convert to cash fuel crops without any deforestation.  

The Author mentioned in his radio interview that the effects of converting to crop land from forest or savannas where the same in terms of carbon.   This is where i think he must be incorrect and would like to see more detail.  unfortunately i cant seem to get my hands on his original papers.   Usually they are made public but i cant locate these.  

I still think that no matter the source, whether it be sugar beat, corn, grass, or trash,  the environmental effects must be better.  This neglects the economic argument of changing fuel suppliers from a select few(OPEC) to a wide variety of third world agrarians.