backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 34 comment(s) - last by gstrickler.. on Feb 13 at 6:33 PM

It's possible ethanol production could reach 90 billion gallons by 2030

An in-depth study completed by the U.S. Sandia National Laboratories with collaboration from General Motors indicates the United States could create enough ethanol to replace a third of all gasoline used in the country by 2030.

Although the research at first sounds promising, consumers would likely have to pay more for gasoline later down the road according to researchers.

The U.S. government has created a federal mandate requesting 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended into gasoline by 2022, but the 90 billion gallon prediction by 2030 is the most aggressive prediction issued.

Technology has been rather slow to evolve to support biofuels and biofuel experts doubt that the industry can reach such an aggressive number by 2030.  Furthermore, the ethanol industry has been backpedaling as of late after several ethanol plants closed and the cost of gasoline has become more competitive.

GM plans to continue introducing more cars fueled by E85, the 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline blend that has slowly increased in popularity.

"Our auto industry is at a critical juncture, but we have to address major societal issues such as energy," GM VP of research and development Lawrence Burns said.  "We're placing a high priority on biofuels right now."

Other car manufacturers have also shown interest in using biofuels to help fuel future car models.

Once E85 becomes more popular among consumers, the government will need to create new standards to prevent low priced petroleum products from undercutting other fuel sources.

The natural average for gasoline was $1.93 on Tuesday, with the average one year ago around $2.95.  The cost of E85 ethanol closed Tuesday at $1.65 per gallon.

Even though ethanol has struggled in the past several months, many see it as the viable resource to help the U.S. drastically reduce its dependence on foreign oil.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

When will people learn?!
By roostitup on 2/12/2009 4:27:48 AM , Rating: 5
Food > Fuel

Ethanol is not a good replacement to gasoline the energy input to energy output ratio is about 1:1, not very effecient.

We need all the ag land area we can get for food. Food is already expensive enough, why waste good ag land to produce fuel when there are other, better sources? Our world population is growing very rapidly, it's going to be harder and harder to feed everyone.

Much of the biomass used would normally return into the soil and add natural fertilizer, making the soil much more sustainable in the long run. Losing these nutrients will require you to fertilize when creates a dependence on artificial fertilizer, only furthering the problem and creating a vicious cycle.

I don't think we should concentrate on one source of alternate fuel. We need to learn from our mistakes with oil and create many sources of fuel so if we have problems with one resource we can take up the slack with the others much easier.

If I were to choose a fuel source to use, I would go with hydrogen. Although it takes a lot of energy to make now, it is improving rapidly. Especially with the invention of the wave powered hydrogen producers. It's the most abundent resource in the Universe. It only outputs water, the biggest problem would be the roads getting too wet, heh.




RE: When will people learn?!
By TSS on 2/12/2009 6:14:07 AM , Rating: 1
http://wiki.xtronics.com/index.php/Energy_density

"There is a good and safe way to store hydrogen - start out with a chain of carbon and attach the hydrogen to this chain - as a liquid this will be hold more hydrogen than liquid hydrogen. This liquid could be distributed to underground tanks and pumped directly into a vehicles fuel tank. This liquid is called gasoline."

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

"In current market conditions, the 50 kWh of electricity consumed to manufacture one kilogram of compressed hydrogen is roughly as valuable as the hydrogen produced, assuming 8 cents/kWh. The price equivalence, despite the inefficiencies of electrical production and electrolysis, are due to the fact that most hydrogen is made from fossil fuels which couple more efficiently to producing the chemical directly, than they do to producing electricity. However, this is of no help to a hydrogen economy, which must derive hydrogen from sources other than the fossil fuels it is intended to replace"

so hydrogen is currently made from oil. giant leap forward.

there is no alternative for the black gold. nothing in the next 100 years will toutch how easy and cheap we've been able to obtain energy for the past 100 years. the best thing to do in between is to use as little as we can.

the only alternative will be electrical vehicles powered by electricity generated by fusion. even with nuclear power, creating a battery, charging that battery and making it last as long as a comparable volume of gasoline will be more expensive.

personally, i'm for using no alternative but just using less energy untill we can set our political differences aside and create something that actually does more good then harm. if we hurry and begin right away we actually might be able to do it within the next millenium.


RE: When will people learn?!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/12/2009 9:02:27 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
there is no alternative for the black gold. nothing in the next 100 years will toutch how easy and cheap we've been able to obtain energy for the past 100 years.
Stuff and nonsense. Your statement is akin to the 19th-century whalers saying nothing would ever touch whale oil for fuel. Drilling mile-deep holes and processing the output in billion-dollar refineries is much harder than spearing a big fish and pumping oil straight out of his head.

Between current petroleum deposits and alternatives like shale oil and tar sands, we have at least another century of fossil fuels left. Beyond that, we have fission and potentially fusion power...more than enough to last us till the end of time.

quote:
personally, i'm for using no alternative but just using less energy
Billions of people are still without electricity, are using things like cow dung for heating and cooking, and walking or riding animals for transportation. You want to tell them to "use less"? Denying them cheap, plentiful energy is one of the cruelest jokes in the environmentalists little bag of tricks.

For the rest of us, economic growth and standard of living are both closely tied to energy use. While increasing efficiency is always good, the fact is that if we want our children to have better lives than us, we'll have to increase overall energy usage.


RE: When will people learn?!
By freeagle on 2/12/2009 9:22:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the best thing to do in between is to use as little as we can.


quote:
i'm for using no alternative but just using less energy untill we can set our political differences aside and create something that actually does more good then harm


in between what? and wait for how long? till the easy to harvest reserves run out? And then we magically change into an alternative? It's good that we are starting to work with alternatives now. They may not be very good, but at least we can learn that now and not in the future when it might too late.

I also don't see how do you want to significantly decrease the usage of gasoline without working with an alternative. People won't stop buying cars, won't start to use them only when really necessary. You also can't tell the industry to decrease the usage of gas, because that would decrease the production. And with decreased production, you can't employ that many people, so your unemployment will rise.

Then alternatives needs to be researched and tried now so we can see how they work.


RE: When will people learn?!
By roostitup on 2/12/2009 12:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
Ya, currently hydrogen uses fossil fuels to produce, but great strides have been made. I've seem many environmentally ran power producing facilities that will directly convert environmental energy (waves, wind, solar & etc) to produce hydrogen. This is completely practical and requires NO fossil fuels and NO limited resources, do your research before you open your mouth about technologies you know nothing about. You are just a negative person, but it's ok, you'll see that oil will be replaced especially at the rate we are going to develop more pratical forms of energy.


RE: When will people learn?!
By destey on 2/12/2009 2:26:41 PM , Rating: 2
We grow hundreds of acres of corn on our dairy farm. It takes an obscene amount of diesel fuel to produce an acre of corn.

* Spread manure
* Plow / harrow field
* Spread lime
* Plant field

That's the planting part. Then to harvest:

* Trucks, we have 2 and hire 4 more.
* Claas Jaguar (a huge harvestor)
* Bucket tractor for moving dumped silage
* Packing tractor to pack the silo
* Bucket loader to bring in tires/tarp to cover silo

Each machine uses a tremendous amount of fuel. How does this process yield a net benefit of our energy situation?

Corn is very expensive to buy, grain from corn is our #1 expense. And we want to use it to power everything too?


RE: When will people learn?!
By roostitup on 2/12/2009 12:11:11 PM , Rating: 1
By the way, don't cite wikipedia. It's useless and proves nothing. Cite a real research paper or peer reviewed journal.


RE: When will people learn?!
By teldar on 2/12/2009 7:37:39 AM , Rating: 4
We pay farmers NOT to farm.We have the ability to produce FAR MORE food than we could ever eat. As far as I'm concerned, if they start making food into fuel and the farmers get paid for farming instead of NOT farming, I think we're all ahead significantly.

And as far as starving people go.... look at Hammas in the strip. Taking the food directly from the relief workers. We could give them our entire food production and it still wouldn't make a difference if their goverment steals it. As an example.

T


RE: When will people learn?!
By JediJeb on 2/12/2009 10:54:30 AM , Rating: 2
This is 100% correct. The only reason the price of food in stores goes up when the production of Ethanol increases is because it gives the middle men in the food production chain a visible excuse to raise the prices. The farmers never see any of that added profit. Farms take there crops to market and ask " how much do I get for this" instead of " This is what I am selling it for" Try going to Wal Mart and tell them what you will give for a loaf of bread and see if they let you walk out the door with it. If the cost of producing the crop costs more than what the buyer will give for it the farmer has to operate at a loss.

As for us running out of land to produce the crops, there are many millions of acres that the government pays people to not use for crop production. I say people because most of the land is owned by non farmers, yet they receive the money to not farm it as if they were farmers. It is a myth to believe we are going to run out of land to produce enough food to feed the world.

Also even with the record high price of corn, most farmers actually made less money because of the record high prices of diesel fuel, ammonia, and land rental. All of that and the fact that by the time the crops were harvested the price of corn and fallen over 30% from the high price in the summer months.

Food prices and the amount of food available are not valid reasons to shun ethanol as fuel. Cost may be one, but if it can be produced for less than what gas cost, that one goes away also. Effieciency may be one, but if engines are designed for the ethanol the difference in effiency verses straight gasoline is not that much. If you can use it in a fuel cell to produce electricity directly then that may even make it more desirable.


RE: When will people learn?!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/12/2009 12:02:47 PM , Rating: 2
> "because it gives the middle men in the food production chain a visible excuse to raise the prices"

I don't think you've noticed we live in a market economy. No one needs a "visible excuse" to raise prices; they can do so any time they wish. Try as you might, though, you can't get around the law of supply and demand. If the supplier of a commodity raises prices without good reason, his competitors will simply get all his business.

Food prices rose for very good reasons. At the stroke of the pen, we legislated a vast new demand for corn. That in turn not only raised the price of corn, but of all other agricultural commodities, as you had the same number of production resources (farmers, farm equipment, arable land, fertilizer, etc) chasing a much greater demand. Prices thus rose sharply -- basic economics.

As those greater prices induced additional production capacity to appear, they dropped somewhat from their original highs, but the new stabilized floor price will still be higher than before...and much, much higher if we continue to legislate additional ethanol demand.


RE: When will people learn?!
By JediJeb on 2/12/2009 4:29:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but the new stabilized floor price will still be higher than before...and much, much higher if we continue to legislate additional ethanol demand.


I checked yesterday and the price for corn was actually lower than what it was this time last year. This graph shows how the price of corn has not kept up with inflation over the last 30 years and just in the last 2 years has began to catch up. http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/C...

For 30 years farmers have been getting roughly the same price for their crop, but they have not been paying the same price for their fuel, equipment land and other expenses. I doubt most of us would want to work for the same wages we received/would have received in our current position 30 years ago.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Artic...

This is the article from which the above graph comes. One disturbing observation I have made over the last 20 years or so has been that there really are very few new farms, almost all are farms that have been passed down to family members over the years. This is because it would be very difficult for someone to start from scratch and become a farmer. Farmland costing $3000/acre, Harvestors starting at $100,000 and increasing quickly with size, Tractors and equipmens also at prices in the $20,000-$50,000 range, Trucks in the $20,000-$40,000 range, or near $70,000 for Semi-Trucks and trailers. The price of corn and other crops really does need to increase or the future of farmers and our nation's food supply is in trouble. The average consumer seems ok with the idea that a house that cost $25,000 in 1970 now cost $100,000, but if $4/bushel corn rises to $16/bushel that is not acceptable. We seem to want to sacrifice one small segment of our population to keep the majority of our population in their comfort zone.

quote:
I don't think you've noticed we live in a market economy. No one needs a "visible excuse" to raise prices; they can do so any time they wish. Try as you might, though, you can't get around the law of supply and demand. If the supplier of a commodity raises prices without good reason, his competitors will simply get all his business.


Actually you may not be able to get around it, but you can artifically influence it, just as OPEC has been doing. If you have the majority of the bulk supply, and control the amount of available supply, then you can set your prices to any you wish( just look at what DeBeers does with the diamond market).


RE: When will people learn?!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/12/2009 9:40:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
price for corn was actually lower than what it was this time last year.
As I said, prices will dip somewhat as skyrocketing prices eventually cause supply increases. The new prices are still far higher than they were before the ethanol mandate.

quote:
This graph shows how the price of corn has not kept up with inflation over the last 30 years
Corn prices have fallen in real terms over the last century. What do you expect? Technology improves, yields improve, and each year fewer farmers produce more food. We feed 300 million people today on 25% *less* farmland than we fed 100 million on in 1900...and we feed them much better, too.

Your graph shows that the ethanol mandate not only reversed that trend of falling food prices, but wiped out 25 years of increased technology gains -- all at a single whack.

quote:
you may not be able to get around it, but you can artifically influence it, just as OPEC has been doing
Oops. OPEC has only one method of increasing oil prices -- cut how much they pump. The old law of supply and demand.

But we haven't cut corn production, we've increased it. And yet prices still skyrocketed. Again, the law of supply and demand...the ethanol mandate increased demand much more than it did supply.


RE: When will people learn?!
By roostitup on 2/12/2009 1:41:03 PM , Rating: 2
If we were to feed everyone the same amounts we eat as individuals in Europe or America this world would most likly have food shortages. You also have to consider that at the rate at which we are growing worldwide it could very easily become difficult to keep increasing food production at that same rate especially with decreasing agricultural lands for ethanol production. Some currently good ag land may also degrade from using poor land/soil sustainability practices to the point where we eventually may not be able to produce nothing at all, thus decreasing available land.
Water abundancy is becomming a hot topic, which everyone knows if we don't have enough of than we can't grow food, so why waste this valuable and limited resource on fuel? Also, with the concern over wildlife becomming endangered some ag land is locked away or is being converted to reserves and etc. Everyone should know that by hurting the organisms that we live with we only hurt ourselves, we are just as reliant on them as they are on us, so this makes quite a conflict of interests.


RE: When will people learn?!
By JimCouch on 2/12/2009 9:03:39 AM , Rating: 2
Algae farmed off shore and at all waste treatment plants and other areas of the country that cannot support food supply crops can produce diesel grade oil in abundance. Bio diesel is the only combustible fuel we need to pursue at this time. We need bio diesel for jet fuel and to power mass-transit (trains, busses etc) and hybrid power plants for personal transportation such as cars, motorcycles and small trucks. Off-shore farming of algae will also benefit marine life and the by product (solid waste) can be used as feed for livestock, compressed into building materials etc.

We need to utilize solar and tidal energy more since it will be here as long as the earth itself is here. Closed system steam driven generators, wind energy etc can provide electrical energy to a SMARTER grid and power future plug-in vehicles.

Petroleum is in limited supply in the USA and there are some things that we will always need it for. I’m not convinced it is drying up, there is evidence that it is NOT fossil fuel at all and is produced by the earth itself but as a country we need to be COMPLETELY energy independent and better stewards of our land. Green technologies will help get us there.


RE: When will people learn?!
By Motoman on 2/12/2009 12:35:57 PM , Rating: 2
Totally agree with the issue of Food > Fuel. I would add to that the increasing clearing of forested land to grow more crops solely to produce ethanol for fuel...it's a two-for-one bonus - raping the earth and starving ourselves!

I'm certainly for hydrogen if there can be rational processes to produce (extract) it, transport it, and store/dispense it. At this point, I'm not sure there is.

I would most certainly not be opposed to efficient methods of getting ethanol from truly useless biomass, such as ditchweed and the offal from poultry processing.

...as for your comment about "the biggest problem would be getting the roads too wet," I gently remind all that *virtually* all of the exhaust from internal combustion engines is water. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but the % of exhaust that isn't water is vanishingly small - and getting smaller all the time as our technology gets better. While all this alternative-fuel stuff is important, it is equally important to continue to work on making conventional fuels/engines as clean and as efficient as possible - regardless of whatever else happens, oil is still (and for the forseeable future) our best source of fuel for transportation.


RE: When will people learn?!
By The0ne on 2/12/2009 1:53:17 PM , Rating: 2
Food is > Fuel. We're using 20% of farming now for fuel. When do we want to switch the focus, when the half of the population is suffering from starvation? And then what about the cost of fuel to produce the same fuel and all those nice cons/pro?

Having said it all, food > fuel is a far more important to me to want this increased further.


RE: When will people learn?!
By gstrickler on 2/12/2009 2:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ethanol is not a good replacement to gasoline the energy input to energy output ratio is about 1:1, not very effecient.
True for corn based ethanol, not for sugar cane and some other types of plants used for ethanol production. Sugar cane based ethanol is the reason Brazil has been able effectively produce ethanol fuel.

quote:
Much of the biomass used would normally return into the soil and add natural fertilizer, making the soil much more sustainable in the long run. Losing these nutrients will require you to fertilize when creates a dependence on artificial fertilizer, only furthering the problem and creating a vicious cycle.
Just one of many problems with corn based ethanol. Water consumption for growing corn is also huge. Corn is a very resource intensive crop with relatively low ethanol yield.

quote:
I don't think we should concentrate on one source of alternate fuel. We need to learn from our mistakes with oil and create many sources of fuel so if we have problems with one resource we can take up the slack with the others much easier.
Well said.

quote:
If I were to choose a fuel source to use, I would go with hydrogen.
An unlikely candidate, unless we can figure out a very energy efficient way to separate hydrogen from water. Hydrogen production and storage have no promising solutions. Energy density and storage are huge obstacles to using hydrogen as a fuel for cars.

Biodiesel and/or non-corn derived ethanol are currently the most promising candidates for automotive use. Electrified (e.g. linear synchronous motor) roadways would be expensive to install, but would eliminate the "portability of fuel / energy density" problem, opening up nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, wave, and solar (both thermal and PV) as potential solutions.

Of course, wind and solar aren't 24/7 solutions, they need energy storage and/or supplemental sources. Wave may be 24/7, but needs energy storage and/or supplemental sources. Nuclear doesn't handle dynamic loads well, so it needs energy storage and/or supplemental sources. The same may be true of hydroelectric and/or geothermal, but I haven't researched those as much.

I think all of those are better alternatives than hydrogen. Each has "issues", but they're all viable, clean, and renewable. My preference is for 30%-50% "clean" nuclear with the others making up most of rest. Fossil fuels should be less than 5%.


RE: When will people learn?!
By Danger D on 2/12/2009 2:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
Corn ethanol keeps getting better, but nobody pays attention to that. Peer-reviewed study published Jan. 21 by UNL in Yale’s Journal of Industrial Ecology: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/1216471...

It took a look at plants built since the run-up in 2004 (currently 60 percent of plants and growing). Plants being built today shatter previous numbers for efficiency, GHG reduction, etc. 1:1 is not the net energy ratio. GHG emissions are way down. Expanding ethanol capacity will keep improvements going. Ethanol has been around for centuries, but ethanol for fuel at this kind of scale is still brand new, and it keeps improving.

Some excerpts:

“Direct-effect GHG emissions were estimated to be equivalent to a 48% to 59% reduction compared to gasoline.”

“An advanced closed-loop biorefinery with anaerobic digestion reduced GHG emissions by 67% and increased the net energy ratio to 2.2, from 1.5 to 1.8 for the most common systems. Such improved technologies have the potential to move corn-ethanol closer to the hypothetical performance of cellulosic biofuels.”

"Ethanol-to-petroleum output/input ratios ranged from 10:1 to 13:1 but could be increased to 19:1 if farmers adopted high-yield progressive crop and soil management practices."


RE: When will people learn?!
By gstrickler on 2/13/2009 11:34:38 AM , Rating: 2
Those ratios fail to account for all the fuel/energy spent planting, growing, harvesting, and transporting the corn to the the refinery and the fuel/energy distributing the ethanol to market. You might get 30% net if you're very efficient. Even with cellulosic ethanol production, corn based ethanol is unlikely to give a really good net energy return because corn requires so much in resources to produce convert to ethanol and it only contains a certain amount of energy.

There are much better options than corn, both for current sugar/starch conversion processes and for cellulose based ethanol/methanol production. Corn is not the solution.


RE: When will people learn?!
By Danger D on 2/13/2009 12:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
No, it accounts for all that. It’s a full life-cycle analysis, which including planting, fertilizer, harvest, transport of feedstock, production, transport of ethanol, etc. Look at the study.


RE: When will people learn?!
By gstrickler on 2/13/2009 2:02:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Look at the study.
I would if your link worked, it gives a message about session/cookie timed out.

Even assuming it's a full life cycle analysis, a 2.2 Net Energy Ratio, while a significant improvement, is not very good. A 2.2 NER for a crop that requires significant land and water resources will not provide a sustainable, renewable fuel.

Look at the NER for sugar cane currently, it's significantly higher. Corn may be improving, but it's not a viable long term solution.


RE: When will people learn?!
By Danger D on 2/13/2009 2:33:34 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry. Try this one: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00105.x

Sugar cane is more efficient. It doesn’t give us energy independence, though. We can’t grow enough in the U.S. to do it. 2.2, or even 1.5, is still better than gas and it's better than the 1:1 that I was responding to. So my understanding is that you support ethanol use for American vehicles, you just think it should be available from other countries?

Our ethanol industry would produce ethanol a lot more cheaply if in the U.S. we treated our workers as poorly (low pay, dangerous work conditions, etc.) as Brazil. They’re treatment of sugarcane workers has been cited by numerous human rights groups.

We had a lot better relationship with Middle Eastern countries before we relied on them for oil, and I’m sure we would have problems with South America if they became our main source for transportation fuel.

We do have an infrastructure set up since the pioneers came to grow, harvest and transport corn. And we’ve been oversupplied for decades until ethanol created a market and let the government quit paying so much in crop supports. Sugar cane works for South America, and it could probably work to some degree in America. But our ethics and the fact that our economy gains (or at least retains) money by keeping the industry here means it’s worthwhile to penalize Brazilian sugar-based ethanol.

Finally, because the ethanol tax credit goes to blenders, not ethanol producers, both imported and domestically produced ethanol benefits from the credit. We essentially subsidize Brazilian ethanol by 45 cents per gallon, down from 51 cents as of January. Take that 45 cents out of the 54 cent tariff, and they’re really getting a 9 cent tariff.


RE: When will people learn?!
By gstrickler on 2/13/2009 5:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sugar cane is more efficient. It doesn’t give us energy independence, though. We can’t grow enough in the U.S. to do it. 2.2, or even 1.5, is still better than gas and it's better than the 1:1 that I was responding to.
Yes, 2.2:1 or 1.5:1 is better than 1:1, but the 2.2 was a best case scenario closed-loop refinery with on-site cattle feed lot, which reduced feed transport costs and provided methane to reduce the natural gas usage of the refinery. 1.5 to 1.8 is about as good as you'll get average, and that only if you're doing all the farming and refining in the corn belt and midwest. BTW, those numbers DO NOT include the cost of distributing the ethanol to stations, which is relatively expensive since there are no ethanol pipelines and it must all be shipped by rail or truck.

Cane is 5-6 times as energy efficient for production of ethanol, and yields about 50% more ethanol per hectare (4500 liters vs about 3000 liters for corn). One big problem is that congress has put tariffs and quotas on sugar cane to "protect" our sugar industry. These quotas are structured to maintain a minimum price for refined sugar from cane and sugar beets. They also establish a ratio of sugar production between cane and sugar beets. One effect of the tariffs is that it has limited the farming of sugar cane in the US, so we don't really know how much we can grow.
quote:
So my understanding is that you support ethanol use for American vehicles, you just think it should be available from other countries?
No. I am opposed to corn based ethanol unless they can significantly improve the NER and NEY. We can and do grow sugar cane in the US. Whether or not we can grow enough is another question, but we can grow a lot more than we do. In any case, we should be encouraging the growing of cane for sugar and ethanol production, as well as promoting research on other biofuel sources, not providing subsidies for growing corn (for food, feed, fuel, or HFCS).

A couple side notes, corn is a terrible food for humans, although it's fine for cattle and other ruminants. The sugar tariffs are the primary reason that so many manufacturers have switched from sugar to HFCS in the US. I'm not going to get into the HFCS debate in this thread, but it's yet another poor use for corn.
quote:
Our ethanol industry would produce ethanol a lot more cheaply if in the U.S. we treated our workers as poorly (low pay, dangerous work conditions, etc.) as Brazil.
And corn based ethanol production would be a lot more expensive if it weren't for all the government subsidies corn and ethanol production receive.

quote:
We do have an infrastructure set up since the pioneers came to grow, harvest and transport corn.
Therefore, we should throw subsidies and deplete our farm land and water resources producing a crop with poor NER? Thanks, but I'll pass.


RE: When will people learn?!
By Danger D on 2/13/2009 6:00:12 PM , Rating: 2
This has turned into an entirely different thread, which is interesting.

Again, my first post was to show that the 1:1 energy return myth that everyone throws around about corn ethanol is BS. It appears we agree at least on that.

In my latest post, I said that I assume you support ethanol. I didn’t say corn. Now we’re talking about importing cheaper and admittedly more efficient ethanol vs. supporting domestic ethanol.

I have two main contentions:

By importing ethanol, we lose potential for energy independence (cellulosic + corn can get us there). Our military and foreign policy concerns simply shift from the Middle East to South America, the new source for our transportation fuel. We quit worrying about the Middle East, and they quit worrying about us (of course it’s more complicated than that, but if we don’t have to worry about oil anymore it surely would dramatically ease tensions). However we get a whole new set of tensions with our neighbors to the south.

But most importantly: By paying Brazilian companies for ethanol, we are supporting slave-like conditions for workers. Read a 2007 BBC report here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6266712.stm
“More than 1,000 labourers have been freed in Brazil by the government's anti-slavery team.
They were said to be working in inhumane conditions on a sugar cane plantation in the Amazon.
An ethanol-producing company which owns the plantation has denied allegations of abusing the workers.
Human rights and labour organisations believe that between 25,000 to 40,000 people could be working in conditions akin to slavery in Brazil.”

Here’s another from Spiegel three weeks ago: “Brazil hopes to supply drivers worldwide with the fuel of the future -- cheap ethanol derived from sugarcane. It is considered an effective antidote to climate change, but hundreds of thousands of Brazilian plantation workers harvest the cane at slave wages.”

There’s no point in creating human rights laws in America if we then turn around and reward companies in other parts of the world for not following those same laws. I believe all people – not just Americans – are endowed with certain inalienable rights. I think America should too.


RE: When will people learn?!
By gstrickler on 2/13/2009 6:33:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now we’re talking about importing cheaper and admittedly more efficient ethanol vs. supporting domestic ethanol.
You're the only one talking about importing ethanol. I'm talking about removing subsidies for corn and corn based products and removing the tariffs and quotas we've imposed on sugar cane. Let the market and technology sort out best sources of production and the best biofuels (ethanol and/or others). Tariffs on and subsidies for domestic products are part of what got us in the situation we're in now, they're not what will get us out of it.

The government mandating ethanol production quotas is really just the ethanol lobby getting congress to mandate that we pay for them investing in an inefficient, unsustainable product under the guise of "energy independence".

E10 actually increases our foreign oil usage. E10 is 90% gasoline. Previously, most of the country was using 85% gasoline + 15% MTBE/ETBE. So, we're now using more gasoline (90% per gallon) but getting lower MPG. I've seen a drop from 26.5mpg to 25mpg switching from 15% MTBE to E10. That means I'm actually using at least 10% more gasoline to drive the same distance since switching from 15% MTBE to E10. While those numbers will vary by vehicle and driving conditions, most people have seen some decrease in fuel economy since the switch, even though E10 has more gasoline per gallon than the MTBE/ETBE blends had.

What will get us out of it is supporting research into sustainable energy sources. Support research, not production. When it's clear that we have some viable, sustainable sources, then we might consider some type of subsidy (e.g. low interest loans for building infrastructure, etc.) to convert more quickly.

quote:
By importing ethanol, we lose potential for energy independence.
Agreed. But right now, producing our own ethanol is increasing our dependence on foreign oil, thanks to the ethanol lobby and our "proactive" congress.


RE: When will people learn?!
By Fraggeren on 2/12/2009 6:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
Bio-ethonal can also be made off of food waste.
http://memebox.com/futureblogger/show/1613


RE: When will people learn?!
By jhb116 on 2/12/2009 9:55:53 PM , Rating: 2
I was ok up until you said Hydrogen is the future. Where does the Hydrogen come from? The most plentiful amount of it is in the form of water. This to will lead to either competition for our drinking water, mucho excessive waste product in the form of salt (from sea water) and/or furhter destruction of the environment.....


Understanding Biofuels
By tigerspot on 2/12/2009 9:27:11 AM , Rating: 2
Today's corn-starch based ethanol isn't a good long-term solution. But of all the transportation energy sources under discussion, biofuels have the most promise by far.

The reason is simple availability, flexibility, and energy density of liquid hydrocarbon or alcohol fuels. (Read: gasoline, diesel, ethanol, methanol, etc.) When you hold a gas pump nozzle in your hand, you are transferring energy to your car at a rate of roughly 20 MEGAwatts (MW). This is way,way higher than the rate you can achieve with any other technology. Comparing this to solar or battery power is like comparing a bulldozer to a pinwheel...yes, one is cleaner, but let's get real about what works!

With today's corn-starch based ethanol, there is a legitimate fuel-vs-food problem. But if we grow crops meant for ethanol production, there is literally 10x gain in efficiencies to be had (eg, with switchgrass or algae & cellulosic processes). The technology has a way to go, but the energy is there to be had.

Alternates like photovoltaics, hydrogen fuel cells, or just deciding to avoid gasoline, do not add up. Biofuel is not there yet, but it can get there.

A world of plug-in-hybrids, cellulosic biofuel blends in the 50% range, and taxed gasoline at around $5 per gallon, is a legitimate combination to wean us off foriegn oil.




RE: Understanding Biofuels
By BansheeX on 2/12/2009 11:01:49 AM , Rating: 4
While nuclear->batteries and switchgrass->biofuel sound like a decent tagteam, we are honestly doing neither. Corn ethanol was the biggest joke on the planet and it continues to get the most subsidies. Nuclear power continues to be blocked and fearmongered against hopelessly outclassed wind and solar. The average voter doesn't know or care. People are so dumb, it's depressing.


RE: Understanding Biofuels
By freeagle on 2/12/2009 11:25:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
People are so dumb, it's depressing


Don't worry. It will all sort itself out


RE: Understanding Biofuels
By RoberTx on 2/12/2009 8:20:42 PM , Rating: 2
"People are so dumb, it's depressing."

I think that statement proved your point, you idiot.


ethanol wont have a chance
By CorwinB on 2/12/2009 5:25:56 AM , Rating: 1
WE honestly need to give up on combustible fuels. we need to focus on non-silicon based solar cells because the silicon ones cannot be mass produced in an economic manner. We also need to shift away from the 3 bladed wind turbines and start using the helix type turbines because they are more simple, more efficient and use less material. They can also be used in urban and residential environments because they can handle the turbulent winds of the city and wont go flying off and they make no noise. Once we get these technologies going we will be able to switch to electric vehicles.

If we put more strict regulation on energy efficiency and tweak our energy distribution systems and put together all the pieces of technology that are in the making at the moment we can make a much more efficient electric vehicle.

The battery tech is now available to make refueling of electric vehicle more practice. Check out these batteries by Toshiba:http://www.scib.jp/en/index.htm
Super fast recharge and high energy capacity,long life, and on top of that they are saying they are working on a high performance version of this battery and I don't see how much more high performance it can get.

All the pieces are there for an electric vehicle to dominate but we have to start putting the pieces together.




RE: ethanol wont have a chance
By majorpain on 2/12/2009 6:43:45 AM , Rating: 2
couldn't agree more.


By bkslopper on 2/12/2009 4:47:23 AM , Rating: 2
...just starve us all to death. ;-)




"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki