Ethanol?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

The Damn POTUS is bought-n-paid for by oilmen--for chrissake, he's an oilman himself. The oil companies are a bunch of greedy motherfuckers who will do everything to suppress an alternate energy source until they get the patents/some means of profiting from it. Until then, they will advocate using petrol, no matter the cost, be it blood or political...

Oil chief: my fears for planet
Shell boss's 'confession' shocks industry

David Adam, science correspondent
Thursday June 17, 2004

The Guardian

The head of one of the world's biggest oil companies has admitted that the threat of climate change makes him "really very worried for the planet".
In an interview in today's Guardian Life section, Ron Oxburgh, chairman of Shell, says we urgently need to capture emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, which scientists think contribute to global warming, and store them underground - a technique called carbon sequestration.

"Sequestration is difficult, but if we don't have sequestration then I see very little hope for the world," said Lord Oxburgh. "No one can be comfortable at the prospect of continuing to pump out the amounts of carbon dioxide that we are pumping out at present ... with consequences that we really can't predict but are probably not good."

His comments will enrage many in the oil industry, which is targeted by climate change campaigners because the use of its products spews out huge quantities of carbon dioxide, most visibly from vehicle exhausts.

His words follow those of the government's chief science adviser, David King, who said in January that climate change posed a bigger threat to the world than terrorism.

"You can't slip a piece of paper between David King and me on this position," said Lord Oxburgh, a respected geologist who replaced the disgraced Philip Watts as chairman of the British arm of the oil giant in March.

Companies including Shell and BP have previously acknowledged the problem of climate change and pledged to reduce their own emissions, but the issue remains sensitive, and carefully worded public statements often emphasise uncertainties over risks.

Robin Oakley, a climate campaigner with Greenpeace, said: "This is an important statement to make but it does have to come with a commitment to follow through, and that means making the case to his peers in the oil industry who are still sceptical of climate change."

Mr Oakley said a gulf was opening between more progressive oil companies such as Shell, which invests in alternative energy sources including wind and solar power, and ExxonMobil, the biggest and most influential producer, particularly in the US.

In June 2002 ExxonMobil's chairman, Lee Raymond, said: "We in ExxonMobil do not believe that the science required to establish this linkage between fossil fuels and warming has been demonstrated."

Lord Oxburgh's words will also fuel arguments over sequestration. Supporters say it will allow a smoother transition to reduced emissions by allowing us to burn coal, oil and gas for longer. Critics argue that the idea is an expensive and probably unworkable smokescreen for continued reliance on fossil fuels.

Last year the Guardian revealed that ministers were considering plans for a national network of pipelines to carry millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide from power stations to be buried under the North sea.

"You probably have to put it under the sea but there are other possibilities. You may be able to trap it in solids or something like that," said Lord Oxburgh, who claimed even vehicle emissions could be trapped and disposed of. "The timescale might be impossible, in which case I'm really very worried for the planet because I don't see any other approach."

According to a 3,000m (about 10,000ft) ice core from Antarctica revealing the Earth's climate history, carbon dioxide levels are the highest for at least 440,000 years.

Lord Oxburgh said the situation is particularly urgent because many developing countries, including India and China, are sitting on huge untapped stocks of coal, probably the most polluting fossil fuel.

"If they choose to burn their coal, we in the west are not in a very good position to tell them not to, because it's exactly what we did in our industrial revolution."

Bryony Worthington, a climate campaigner with Friends of the Earth, said: "It isn't a responsible attitude to say we're going to pledge to do sequestration but if the plans don't work out then the world's messed up. He's done quite a clever job by making it clear he's concerned but at the same time not pledging to do anything about it."

She called for tougher emission standards for new vehicles, as well as greater investment in energy efficiency measures and renewable sources.

A former non-executive director with Shell, Lord Oxburgh was catapulted into the chairman's role after the company was forced to reveal it had overstated the extent of its reserves. He was widely viewed as a safe pair of hands.

He followed his long-standing academic career with spells as chief science adviser to the Ministry of Defence and rector of Imperial College, London. A crossbench life peer, he still chairs the Lords science and technology select committee, although he must retire from Shell next year.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

[Opie 0]

http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/issues/2001/ethanol/08_22_01b.htm

This article goes through the flaws in the Cornel study you are quoting on point by point basis. Basically Pementel was using very outdated figures and not even considering the fact that ethanol production plants produce more than ethanol alone. DDGS in the main co-product that is sold as a feed product.

edited to add that I meant this as a reply to Jimbo

[Opie 0]

Quote

Quote

Production of ethanol has doubled in the last five years and its not because it costs more than gasoline.

My guess is that local regulations are calling for it as an additive and that has nothing to do with price. Your guess would be wrong. In the area I live in it is not required by any local regulations.

Quote

Here in the midwest a 10% blend of ethanol is cheaper than straight gasoline at the pump.

When is the last time you saw 'straight' gasoline? I can't remember the last time that I did. Well just by straight gasoline I mean gasoline with no ethanol in it, and I see that all the time in this area. It is usually the lowest octane rating and higher priced than the higher octane 10% ethanol blend.

-
Jim

[jumpinfarmer 0]

That Cornell study is very flawed, and was done by someone who hates ethanol.
One thing that realy stands out is that it says that it takes 140 galons of fosile fuel to grow an acre of corn. If that were true it woul take over 28,000 gallons of fuel to grow the 203 acres of corn I've got planted this year. Last year I had 175 acres of corn and used about 16,500 gallons of fuel. That doesn't take into account that I grow alot of other crops besides corn. I work about 900 acres total if I divide 16,500 by 900 I get about 17.5 gal to the acre. That also dosen't take into account that alot of that fuel was used in my truck, the lawn mower, snowmobile, you get the picture.

Cornell also didn't figure any sale of the byproducts of ethanol, such as DDGs and CO2. Both are sold and help make ethanol production very eficiant. They also only figure on about 2 gallons of ethanol per bushel of corn, when the real production is more like 3.5 gallons per bushel.

[billvon 3,120]

>Current studies show a net energy gain of 34%.

Right, but products like biodiesel are closer to 50-80% (depending on how you do the accounting.) Methane digesters are even higher because they take a waste stream that is currently unused (animal waste, forestry byproducts.)

There is a way to be close to 100% efficient, and that's by not using petroleum based fertilizers, pesticides and mechanical means of planting or harvesting. Unfortunately, that reduces yield too, so nothing's free.

>Ethanol is already included in 30% of gas nationwide reducing our
>need to import that much foreign oil.

Not really true. Ethanol is used as an oxygenate in many states in concentrations of between 5 to 10%. Overall impact is that it reduces our gasoline consumption by about 2%, which in turn reduces our oil consumption by about 1% (about half of each barrel of oil becomes gasoline.)

Ethanol is a pretty good alternative fuel, mainly because we can use it as a "gasoline extender" and run it in concentrations up to about 20%. FFV's, which are made by several car companies, can use fuel that contains up to 85% ethanol. It's not super efficient in terms of energy yet, which in turn means it's not cheap. Hopefully, advances in yeasts, processes and feedstocks can push up the efficiencies and lower the costs.

[Opie 0]

Quote

>Current studies show a net energy gain of 34%.

Right, but products like biodiesel are closer to 50-80% (depending on how you do the accounting.) Methane digesters are even higher because they take a waste stream that is currently unused (animal waste, forestry byproducts.)

There is a way to be close to 100% efficient, and that's by not using petroleum based fertilizers, pesticides and mechanical means of planting or harvesting. Unfortunately, that reduces yield too, so nothing's free.

>Ethanol is already included in 30% of gas nationwide reducing our
>need to import that much foreign oil.

Not really true. Ethanol is used as an oxygenate in many states in concentrations of between 5 to 10%. Overall impact is that it reduces our gasoline consumption by about 2%, which in turn reduces our oil consumption by about 1% (about half of each barrel of oil becomes gasoline.)

Ethanol is a pretty good alternative fuel, mainly because we can use it as a "gasoline extender" and run it in concentrations up to about 20%. FFV's, which are made by several car companies, can use fuel that contains up to 85% ethanol. It's not super efficient in terms of energy yet, which in turn means it's not cheap. Hopefully, advances in yeasts, processes and feedstocks can push up the efficiencies and lower the costs.

The thread is not about whether biodiesel has a greater net energy gain than ethanol, I agree biodiesel is another good option but that has nothing to do with this discussion.

As you say "depending on how you do the accounting" the 34% figure is just one that looks like a fairly good reflection of the current effiencies but I think you can also find studies showing from 57% an higher at ethanol.org but my point isn't the exact number but that it does have a good gain and is something that is in place now.

As for the 30% nationwide figure I took it from an article that should be posted at www.farmweek.ilfb.org it's out in print now and should be up soon.

If we could push the 10% blend to every gallon of gas used is would make a nice but not huge difference in the oil we need to import and help clean up pollution at the same time. As far as the FFV's and E85 is concerned we certainly have a long way to go as far a distribution. I'm in the heart of ethanol country but would have to drive 40 miles to find it at a pump right now. I do think is another option even considering the lower mileage you would likely see. Is a 10% drop in mileage really so bad if you could get E85 for $1.25 and gasoline for $2.50?

Use more ethanol, use more biodiesel, use less imported oil

• Quote

[billvon 3,120]

>I agree biodiesel is another good option but that has nothing to do with this discussion.

If biodiesel and ethanol had nothing to do with each other I'd agree. However, we are limited in our arable land (and more importantly limited in water to irrigate it) so it may end up being one or the other. I ran some numbers a while back and came up with:

You'd need to plant roughly 10% of the entire surface of the US to get enough fuel via biodiesel, and 26% of the surface of the US to get enough fuel via ethanol. That's assuming that you replace every single fuel source with one or the other, and that we make no effort to reduce our consumption. A better solution (I think) would be a combination of ethanol to stretch gas supplies while we gradually transition to a combination of more efficient FFV's, diesel hybrids, natural gas cars and pure EV's. Oil we reserve for important stuff like plastics. We have to ensure the "true" price of each fuel is bundled into the cost i.e. the environmental and military costs of oil have to get added to its cost, just as the costs of fertilizer etc have to get added to ethanol. Once we have a mix of fuels available that are closer to their "true" prices, natural market forces select which one wins.

[Opie 0]

I guess we have a different view about what the thread is about. I was focusing on the original post

Quote

Anyone smart on Ethanol? Why are we still the Saudis' bitch because of their oil, when we could be burning domestically producable/renewable ethanol??? Aren't the two products interchangable in most applications (engines, heating, etc...)???

and the replies I saw here that ethanol has no real net energy gain.

The facts as I see them are that it does have a gain and it can be used in our gasoline burning cars on the road right now. I have no issue with using something else when it becomes available and affordable, but if ethanol is here now, cost effective, and a pollution reducer I see no reason for ethanol to continously get the bad wrap of having no real energy gain and being a waste of time while quoting no sources or one vary flawed cornell study imho. Just trying to get the facts about the ethanol out here.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Is a 10% drop in mileage really so bad if you could get E85 for $1.25 and gasoline for $2.50?

How do you see only a 10% drop in mileage? Many CA motorists saw such a dropoff (not to mention a jack in the price) with the new blend that came out in 1997 - that was only 10% ethanol or MTBE (now banned).

[Opie 0]

"Changes in fuel economy are minimal. While a 10% ethanol blend contains about 97% of the energy of 'pure' gasoline, this is compensated by the fact that the combustion efficiency of the ethanol-blended fuel is increased. The net result is that most consumers do not detect a difference in their fuel economy, although many people using ethanol-blended fuels have said that their fuel economy has improved."

Quoted from http://www.greenfuels.org/ethaques.html

I wouldn't mind seeing some studies that show a significant drop in mileage with a 10% blend if you can point me to some. It's not something I've heard of and ethanol blends have always been marketed as "premium" blends in our area because of the higher octane levels.

As for the "jack in the price" you mention. I think it's a distribution problem. Mainly high transportation costs to move the product from the midwest to cali. but production expansion in the western states should be relieving much of that.

[jumpinfarmer 0]

One of the problems with Bio diesel is that it is primaraly made from soybean oil. Soybeans are a more costly commodity than corn and don't have the yeild potental of corn. In recent years corn yields have gone way up 140 bushels an acre can be expected. Soybean yields haven't followed suit and hover around 35 to 40 Bu. per acre. If there's a market for the corn, as with ethanol, it will be grown.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

"Changes in fuel economy are minimal. While a 10% ethanol blend contains about 97% of the energy of 'pure' gasoline, this is compensated by the fact that the combustion efficiency of the ethanol-blended fuel is increased. The net result is that most consumers do not detect a difference in their fuel economy, although many people using ethanol-blended fuels have said that their fuel economy has improved."

Quoted from http://www.greenfuels.org/ethaques.html

yeah, that's a reassuring source.

I changed cars right as it happened, so my direct experience is unclear. I'm getting well under the EPA rating (by 10%), but Subarus have a reputation for underforming in that regard.

Quote

As for the "jack in the price" you mention. I think it's a distribution problem. Mainly high transportation costs to move the product from the midwest to cali. but production expansion in the western states should be relieving much of that.

Nope. It's a supply problem. CA has its own blend and if there is any bump in the supply, it cannot be met by anyone else nearby. Then there was the cost to retool the refineries to use MTBE, and then away from it. Plus trucking all that ethanol over....

MTBE and ethanol were used for air quality reasons, not for reducing oil consumption. It is believed that the same effect could be achieved without should the feds allow it (no). In any event, it would be easier to believe if there were underlying dollar politics, just as with the oil concerns.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Why are we still the Saudis' bitch because of their oil, when we could be burning domestically producable/renewable ethanol???"

Tax the shit out of gasoline, provide tax incentives for the likes of bio diesel, ethanol, LPG, hydrogen fuel cells, electric powered service vehicles, alternative energy sources for electricity, improve public transport, etc.
Apply punitive import duty on foreign crude in order to stimulate the development of your local oil resources, (deep water gulf of Mexico, and the northern regions) this might get you guys past the gap in supply short term.

Otherwise, there is no incentive to change, and there is very little incentive to develop the technology, distribution infrastructure, and the mindset of the consumers.

Ah, but Dubbya has vowed not to change the status quo regarding fuel tax and consumption, so I guess you'll just have to continue taking it up the ass from the oil suppliers.
And that means propping up the house of cards that is the middle east.
Sucks to be you, huh?

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson