Canadian farmers say the "food vs fuel" debate is over with release of their report on ethanol

[JohnWxy]

http://domesticfuel.com/category/ethanol-news/

The Grain Farmers of Ontario have proclaimed that the food versus fuel debate should be over with the release of a new report that says farmers can serve both markets.

The study on “Effects of Biofuels and Bioproducts on the Environment, Crop and Food Prices and World Hunger” they say “should put an end to the ongoing debate of whether the grain we grow should be used for food or fuel. We can and should do both.”
(more)

Full report on Canadian ethanol production: http://www.gfo.ca/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=HKfOeU3cHTI%3d&tabid=139">What are the Effects of Biofuels and Bioproducts on the Environment, Crop and Food Prices and World Hunger?

Substituting 10% ethanol into gasoline in Ontario/Canada means a 62% reduction in net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, on a per-litre basis, adjusted for differences in the relative caloric energy content of ethanol and gasoline, including corn inputs, transportation and associated soil losses. The 62% reduction means an annual reduction of 2.3 million tonnes of GHG emissions, equivalent to the annual emissions from 440,000 cars, about two-thirds of this in Ontario.

Fuel ethanol produced from corn has 1.6 times more combustible energy than is used for its manufacture, including corn production and transport. This ratio could increase to 2.3 by 2015.
~~
~~
The “grain deficiency” for the hungry people in the world‟s most hungry countries is equivalent to 1.1% of annual world grain production. The problem is lack of local food production in hungry rural areas, not supply of grain from the developed world.

The “solution” involves greater local grain production – including converting large acreages of potential arable land into agriculture, and higher yields with the adoption of more advanced agriculture – and not more imports from developed countries.

(more)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(this is consistent with USDA studies showing a 1.6 to 1 ratio of energy yield in the ethanol fuel to the fossil fuel consumed in producing the ethanol. The latest USDA study states that ethanol producers are achieving yields of 1.9 - 2.3 to 1. http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/2008Ethanol_June_final.pdf

"Together, the recent energy use estimates show that the ratio of energy in ethanol to the external energy used to produce ethanol is about 1.4, even without allowing for the processing component of the byproduct credit. After fully allowing for heat used to produce byproducts, the energy ratio is between 1.9 and 2.3.
~~
~~
Biomass power reduces the external fossil energy needed to produce ethanol. In the case of corn
stover, some of the fossil energy used to produce corn-biomass is recovered...
...Under these circumstances, the energy balance ratio increases to 2.8

[jpak]

1. Thanks!

:hi:

[kristopher]

2. Biofuels vs. Biomass Electricity

Biofuels vs. Biomass Electricity
Findings show that turning biomass into electricity is more beneficial than turning it into transportation fuels.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009 BY TYLER HAMILTON
A study published today in Science concludes that, on average, using biomass to produce electricity is 80 percent more efficient than transforming the biomass into biofuel. In addition, the electricity option would be twice as effective at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. The results imply that investment in an ethanol infrastructure, even if based on more efficient cellulosic processes, may prove misguided. The study was done by a collaboration between researchers at Stanford University, the Carnegie Institute of Science, and the University of California, Merced.

There's also the potential, according to the study, of capturing and storing the carbon dioxide emissions from power plants that use
switchgrass, wood chips, and other biomass materials as fuel--an option that doesn't exist for burning ethanol. Biomass, even though it releases CO2 when burned, overall produces less carbon dioxide than do fossil fuels because plants grown to replenish the resource are assumed to reabsorb those emissions. Capture those combustion emissions instead and sequester them underground, and it would "result in a carbon-negative energy source that removes CO2 from the atmosphere," according to the study.

The researchers based their findings on scenarios developed under the Biofuel Analysis Meta-Model (EBAMM) created at the University of California, Berkeley. The analysis covered a range of harvested crops, including corn and switchgrass, and a number of different energy-conversion technologies. Data collected were applied to electric and combustion-engine versions of four vehicle types--small car, midsize car, small SUV, and large SUV--and their operating efficiencies during city and highway driving.

The study accounted for the energy required to convert the biomass into ethanol and electricity, as well as for the energy intensiveness of manufacturing and disposing of each vehicle type. Bioelectricity far outperformed ethanol under most scenarios, although the two did achieve similar distances when the electric vehicles--specifically the small car and large SUV--weren't designed for efficient highway driving.

The potential is even greater for the bioelectricity option because under the EBAMM model, "we did not account for heat as a by-product...

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22628/

Liquid fuels are important, but their role in a renewable world where electricity is the primary energy carrier is much different from one where petroleum is king. Moving away from petroleum requires losing the Internal Combustion Engine for our personal transportation fleet.

[JohnWxy]

7. This study compares these two pathways without considering the time required to field electric cars.

This study does not consider the practical consideration that because of the time involved in replacing vehicles (people replace their cars in about 7 to 10 years, so it takes some time for a significant change in the fleet to occur). This is exacerbated by the high cost of electric vehicles (e.g. the Volt or Leaf). This will slow considerably the rate of adoption of electric vehicles. Estimates vary considerably but even optimistic ones forecast it will take about 20 years to reach electric cars (PHEVs) equalling 20% of the fleet. During the ensuing two decades biofuels in automobiles would have been achieving GHG reductions and reductions of gasoline usage.

Reduction of gasoline consumption is critical to limiting the increasing price of petroleum which without consumption reductions will absorb most if not all of any growth in GDP. This is important as with low economic growth and high unemployment the sales of PHEVs will be very adversely impacted, stretching out the rate of adoption of electric cars. This will mean any gains to be had from electic cars will be put off further into the future.

supplemental materials to study: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2009/05/06/1168885.DC1/Campbell.SOM.pdf


Aside from that, this study assumes the traditional Heat value based efficiency comparison of burning ethanol in a ICE vs gasoline. MIT researchers have designed an Ethanol Enabled Direct Injection engine which achieves a 30% increase in fuel efficiency - but it does this using 5% ethanol and 95% gasoline. Thus you get a 28% reduction in gas consumption with 5% of the volume consumed as ethanol. This multiplies the GHG reduction impact of ethanol 20 times.

This engine can be mass produced at a marginal cost of about $1,000 to $1,500 or about 1/13th to 1/20th the cost of the Volt (at $40,000 about $20,000 more than a car of comparable payload). At this cost, a car equipped with this engine would be much more quickly adopted by the public especially in the likely future of low growth - lower employment rates (due to the increasing price of petroleum).

[provis99]

3. of course I expect industry advocates to come up with nonsense figures.

The ratio is not 1.8 to 1, it is more like 1 to 6. This nonsense was settled nearly ten years ago, when a spate of scientific publications proved the industry advocates were flat out lying.

The Department of Agriculture figures are crap. They are an advocate for subsidies for corn growers in America, and their figures have been criticized as being biased, indeed outright falsehoods, before.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/5062
http://gaia.pge.utexas.edu/papers/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf
http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-06-27/news/17378861_1_ethanol-production-fossil-energy-fossil-fuel
http://feinstein.senate.gov/05speeches/ethanol-oped.htm

[JohnWxy]

6. You refer to output from Tad Patzek (formerly of Shell Oil) and Pimentel (LOL)

the Energy Bulletin article you refer to mentions the copy produced by Ted Patzek a known shill of the Oil and gas industry. Patzek used to work for Shell Oil. He set up a front organization to better receive funding (i.e. the funding goes to the organization rather than directly to him.) from major oil producers. NOte at the time he created this front organization he worked at University of California. THus the name UC Oil Conortium was intended to imply some sort of linkage with or support from the University of California (UC). The UC does not stand for ANYTHING!

YOur reference to the university of texas article is again a reference to bullshit produced by Patzek.

the referencee to the SF gate article is again a reference to Patzek bullshit.

the Feinstein page is the best it refers to copy produced by Patzek (and believe it or not) Pimental .. a retired professor of entomology who decided to boost his retirement income writing about the energetics of ethanol production to make money.

Both Patzek and Pimentel have been universally panned in the scientific community. No sensible person refers to the bull they have written. the criticisms have gone into their stuff in detail which I really don't want to repeat here.


Here is a good over-view of the criticism of Patzek and Pimentel: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x48327">Vociferous Critics of Ethanol (Pimentel & Patzek) widely discredited

"Maybe the problem is Pimentel is an entomologist instead of an engineer," Corzine said, adding that Patzek was a longtime employee of Shell Oil Company and founder of the UC Oil Consortium, which has counted BP, Chevron USA, Mobil USA, Shell and Unocal among its members. Patzek also is a member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers" (more)

...I will point out that Patzek and Pimentel earned universal disdain in scientific circles for not even counting the co-products that are made when ethanol is produced in their calculations of the efficiency of ethanol production form corn. All the protein from the corn is recovered and sold as a high nutrient, high protein feed supplement for cattle. The coproducts should recieve their part of the energy inputs to arrive at a valid computation of the efficiency of the ethanol production process which also generates these coproducts.

Here is an article from BusniessWeek.com that also mentions Mr. Patzek: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_40/b4052052.htm">Big Oil's Big Stall On Ethanol

Mark N. Cooper, research director at the Consumer Federation of America, authored a recent paper characterizing the situation as "Big Oil's war on ethanol." The industry, he writes, "reacted aggressively against the expansion of ethanol production, suggesting that it perceives the growth of biofuels as an independent, competitive threat to its market power in refining and gasoline marketing."

The industry collects the subsidies, but didn't lobby for them—Congress created them to encourage a larger ethanol market. While oil reps say they aren't anti-ethanol, they are candid about disliking E85. Says Al Mannato of the American Petroleum Institute (API), the chief trade group for oil and natural-gas companies: "We think makes an effective additive to gasoline but that it doesn't work well as an alternative fuel. And we don't think the marketplace wants E85."

One prong in the oil industry's strategy is an anti-ethanol information campaign. In June the API released a study it commissioned from research firm Global Insight Inc. The report concludes that consumers will be "losers" in the runup to Congress' target of 35 billion gallons of biofuel by 2017 because, it forecasts, they'll pay $12 billion-plus a year more for food as corn prices rise to meet ethanol demand. The conclusions are far from universally accepted, but they have been picked up and promoted by anti-ethanol groups like the Coalition for Balanced Food & Fuel Policy, made up of the major beef, dairy, and poultry lobbies. Global Insight spokesman Jim Dorsey says the funding didn't influence the findings: "We don't have a dog in this hunt."

Academia plays a role as well. There is perhaps no one more hostile to ethanol than Tad W. Patzek, a geo-engineering professor at the University of California at Berkeley. A former Shell petroleum engineer, Patzek co-founded the UC Oil Consortium, which studies engineering methods for getting oil out of the ground. It counts BP (BP ), Chevron USA, (CVX ) Mobil USA, and Shell (RDS ) among its funders. A widely cited 2005 paper by Patzek and Cornell University professor David Pimentel concluded that ethanol takes 29% more energy to produce than it supplies—the most severe indictment of the biofuel. Michael Wang, vehicle and fuel-systems analyst at the Energy Dept.'s Argonne National Laboratory, says among several flaws in the study is the use of old data and the overestimation of corn farm energy use by 34%. Pimentel defends the study. In a recent update, he and Patzek hiked the estimate of ethanol's energy deficit to 43%.
(more)

Consumer Federation of America's report here: http://www.consumerfed.org/elements/www.consumerfed.org/file/Ethanol.pdf">Big Oil vs. Ethanol - Consumer Federation of America



As far as industry funding of pseudo scientific bullshit on ethanol goes, we can't overlook the $100 million grant EXXON MOBIL made to Stanford University - with the unprecendented requirement that EXXON have a seat on the board that decides what research projects get funded!

And then there was the $450 million grant from BP to the University of California Berkeley. This kind of money buys a lot of influence.


NOw, as far as actual scientific inquiry into this matter, all the legitimate studies have concluded that the energy balance for ethanol is positive and climbing.

the USDA is a source of legitimate empirically based information on ethanol. Their data and studies are available for review. The Argonne National Laboratory (a part of the Dept. of Energy) has provided a great volume of scientific studies of the energetics of ethanol. Argonnnes' Michael Wang created the GREET Model for evaluating different fuels for GH emissions which is used by thousands of actual researchers in industry, government and the academia.

Segundo and Dale published their study in 2002 http://ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/MSU_Ethanol_Energy_Balance.pdf">link that concluded ethanol's energy balance was 1.76 to 1 which independently confirmed USDA's conclusions of 1.67 to 1, about the same time.

As pointed out in OP, that number keeps rising as shown in USDA's latest findings.

University of Illinois at Chicago, published a study showing that the ethanol industry's efficiency is improving significantly:
http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/Ethanol_production_efficiency_U_of_IL_spring_2010.pdf

Simply put their is no credible, scientific, empirically based research that hasn't concluded ethanol production from corn has a positive and climbing Net Energy Balance (or Net Energy Gain).

This does not mean there may not be better ways of producing ethanol in the future. But the key words here are "in the future". We want to move on to more efficient ways of producing ethanol but these ways do not exist now and in light of the relentlessly rising price of petroleum and our economy's dependence upon and vulnerability to price rises in that commodity, in lieu of dreaming about what might be, it might be better to do what is possible now - while we work on more efficient means of producing renewable fuels(including making starch based ethanol production more efficient). This would seem a practical approach.

[Bill USA]

9. WOW!

[kristopher]

12. 1.6:1 or even 2.0:1, ethanol is not an energy source - it is energy storage.

At least, it isn't an energy source in any meaningful sense of the word. At 1.6:1 you need to produce a gallon of ethanol to get a 6/10th of a gallon of fuel to do something else with - if it were all in the form of fuel. However, since all of the energy credits that push ethanol into the net positive energy balance realm are NOT in the desired form of liquid fuel, what the fuck is the point?

Biofuel Skeptic Extraordinaire - An interview with David Pimentel (2006)
...

Q: I also see that in your studies, your calculation of how much energy goes into producing synthetic fertilizer is higher than the USDA's assessment. Why that difference?

A:Our data come from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. We're actually using a lower number than . We're using 16,000 kilocalories per kilogram , and I say the FAO is using 18,000. So again, we're using the most accurate data that are available, and not trying to manipulate these numbers.

Q: Another place where you clash with other researchers is over the byproducts of ethanol: stuff like distillers grains that go into animal feed, etc. For those researchers, byproducts are what push ethanol's energy balance solidly onto positive ground.

A: We do account for it. Distillers grains, incidentally, are being used as a substitute for soybean meal. So we went back to the soybean meal, and examined how it's produced, and the energy that is required to produce it. Instead of giving a 40 to 60 percent credit as the pro-ethanol people do, we found that the credit should be more like 9 percent. They are manipulating the data again.

...

Much more at: http://www.grist.org/article/philpott2

Commentary: The Ethanol Fallacy
by Professor David Pimentel


The Economic, Environmental and Ethical Problems of Using Corn for Fuel
Dwindling foreign oil, rising prices at the gas pump and hype from politically well-connected U.S. agribusiness have combined to create a frenzied rush to convert food grains into ethanol fuel. The move is badly conceived and ill advised. Corporate spin and pork barrel legislation aside, here, by the numbers, are the scientific reasons why corn won't provide our energy needs:

- First, using corn or any other biomass for ethanol requires huge regions of fertile land, plus massive amounts of water and sunlight to maximize crop production. All green plants in the United States - including all crops, forests and grasslands, combined - collect about 32 quads (32 x 1015 BTU) of sunlight energy per year. The American population today burns more than three times that amount of energy annually as fossil fuels. There isn't even close to enough biomass in America to supply our biofuel needs.

- Second, biofuel enthusiasts - including agribusiness lobbyists and PR firms - suggest that ethanol produced from corn and cellulosic biomass such as grasses could replace much of the oil used in the United States.

But consider that 20 percent of the U.S. corn crop was converted into 5 billion gallons of ethanol in 2006, and that amount replaced only 1 percent of U.S. oil consumption. If the entire national corn crop were used to make ethanol, it would replace a mere 7 percent of U.S. oil consumption, far from making the United States independent of foreign oil...

http://www.satireandcomment.com/sc0308ethanol.html

Just thought he should have his side presented accurately.

[Kaleva]

13. Ethanol replaces gasoline; not oil per se.

In 2010, the US produced 13.23 billion gallons of ethanol. In 2009, the latest figures I could find, ethanol accounted for 10% of motor gasoline consumption in the US.

From the article you posted:

"ethanol requires huge regions of fertile land, plus massive amounts of water and sunlight to maximize crop production ."

Is the author arguing there will be less sunlight for the rest of us if ethanol production continues to increase?

[kristopher]

14. How much diesel, natural gas, gasoline and coal is embodied in that ethanol?

Using Wangs 1999 (because they're handy) numbers and rounding to nearest 100.
Energy input for 1 acre of corn to ethanol = 64,500 BTU
Net energy value = 29,800 BTU
Therefore total energy value is 94,300 BTU

Less the "coproducts energy value" that is embodied in that net energy value = 22,500 BTU

Actual ethanol energy value = 61,800 BTU

Compare to energy input of 64,500:61,800

So you input 64,500 BTUs of gasoline/diesel/natural gas/coal and you get back 61,800 BTUs of liquid ethanol and some "coproducts" (aka feed for cattle).

So you see and as I said earlier, ethanol is not an energy source - it is energy storage. At least, it isn't an energy source in any meaningful sense of the word. At 1.6:1 you need to produce a gallon of ethanol to get a 6/10th of a gallon of fuel to do something else with - if it were all in the form of fuel. However, since all of the energy credits that push ethanol into the net positive energy balance realm are NOT in the desired form of liquid fuel, what the fuck is the point?


Numbers from Wang entry at table 1 here:
http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Energy+return+on+energy+invested#cornbased_ethanol_8

[Bill USA]

16. for convenience I'll give you the link to data much more current than the 1996 data used by Wang

the 1999 report. (you failed to provide a link)

Here is the link to the industry survey done by USDA which is for 2008:


http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/2008Ethanol_June_final.pdf

they report total energy inputs for one gallon of ethanol at 53,785 BTUs
The amount of energy in the gallon of ethanol fuel:.........76,300 BTUs (low heat value)
Now this is BEFORE COPRODUCT CREDITS. The ratio of energy in the fuel over energy inputs is 1.4 to 1.

Now, AFTER coproduct credits (allocating energy to the coproducts produced in making the ethanol) you get ..
energy inputs to make the fuel ethanol of: 40,849BTUs. the Net Energy Balance ratio is then: 1.87 to 1.

again, this contrasts to the .81 to 1 ratio of output energy in gasoline over input energy used to produce the gasoline.

[4dsc]

25. Energy Balance For Ethanol Better Than For Gasoline?

I have dealt with the USDA studies in previous essays, showing the shoddy and misleading methodology they use. But let’s now examine this claim of energy efficiency. Would it surprise you to know that not only is this claim false, it is WAY FALSE?

Let’s do some quick calculations to demonstrate this. A barrel of crude oil contains 5.8 million BTUs (2) of material that will ultimately be turned into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, etc. It is well-documented that the average energy return on energy invested (EROEI) for crude oil production is around 10/1 (3). Therefore, we will use up about 580,000 BTUs from our barrel getting it out of the ground. The other major input occurs during the refining process, and it also takes roughly 10% of the contained BTUs in the barrel of oil. The total energy input into the process is 1.16 million BTUs, and the energy output was 5.8 million BTUs. The EROEI is then 5.8 million/1.16 million, or 5/1.

For ethanol, the USDA study reference above showed that for an energy input of 77,228 BTUs, an energy output (when co-products were included) of 98,333 BTUs were generated. The EROEI is then 98,333/77,228, or 1.27/1. The efficiency of producing gasoline is then 4 times higher than for ethanol, which makes sense when you think about it.

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2006/04/08/energy-balance-for-ethanol-better-than-for-gasoline/

Another ethanol hack bites the dust.

[Bill USA]

15. You seem to be proficient in speaking nonsense .. I wonder if you are doing this intentionally to

confuse the issue or if you just don't understand what you are writing about. ... Might be from reading Pimentel's stuff instead of the work of people who look at actual results of producing ethanol - such as the USDA.

You stated:

"At 1.6:1 you need to produce a gallon of ethanol to get a 6/10th of a gallon of fuel to do something else with - if it were all in the form of fuel. However, since all of the energy credits that push ethanol into the net positive energy balance realm are NOT in the desired form of liquid fuel, what the fuck is the point?"


you state that the "energy credits that push ethanol into the net positive energy balance realm are NOT in the desired form of liquid fuel..."

The USDA industry survey (http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/2008Ethanol_June_final.pdf">Energy Balance 2008 Corn Ethanol Industry) states that WITHOUT allocation of energy inputs to coproducts the Energy Balance is 1.4 to 1. WITH the coproduct credits it is 1.9 to 1.

to compare this to producing gasoline - for every unit of input energy you get .81 units of output energy in the form of gasoline. That is, the Energy balance is below 1 : 1. See http://www.eri.ucr.edu/ISAFXVCD/ISAFXVAF/UGEEERF.pdf">Updated Energy and GHG Emissions Results for Fuel Ethanol 2005 - Michael Wang, Argonne National Laboratory (these are not the latest data on ethanol but it includes Wang's findings for gasoline).

[kristopher]

19. And yet ethanol is STILL just a means of energy storage, not a source of energy.

What I wrote stands - you haven't written anything that refutes the fundamental premise.

As I read that somewhat questionable paper from the USDA you offer, I see that the "coproduct credit" you are referring to is actually termed "the byproduct credit" which "is the heat used to prepare dry dg". In light of other problems with that document (see below), and without a much better description of the way "the heat used to prepare dry dg" earns its place as a credit, I don't consider its inclusion proper or its effect on the outcome a credible claim. Not that it is actually that significant or important to my central premise even if it were.

The method of data collection that was used in preparing the document is is, however extremely important and it is poor; so poor, in fact, that it is simply not a valid data collection instrument.

What you have is a survey that was conducted by the National Agribusiness Marketing Association (NAMA). They describe themselves this way:
"The National Agribusiness Marketing Association (NAMA) provides professional development activities for university students majoring in Agribusiness. NAMA chapters at the University of Minnesota, University of Nebraska, and Iowa State University are conducting the survey."

In and of itself that isn't damning, but when a marketing agency is the force behind anything you cite, it is a tip to read critically. So let's do that because the way the data was collected most definitely IS damning.

Here is their description of the instructions they sent with their survey. Note that the second and third sentences inform the respondent that they have a financial stake in slanting the data they report, and in the final two sentences they are assured they 1) will not have no responsibility for the accuracy of their responses and 2) the results will be used to argue the case for ethanol to the public.

This survey asks for your use of energy during the course of producing ethanol. The information you provide will be used to calculate an industry average “benchmark” of the ethanol industry’s energy balance ratio. In this fashion, any improvement in the ethanol industry’s performance as a biofuel can be documented. The current benchmark is also useful to individual firms because they can identify areas of potential improvement.

This survey also asks a few optional questions about a few cost components that change over time with changing technology. The questions focus on a few components of operating cost and plant construction expenditures—overall production cost is not requested.

If you are currently an ethanol producer, please fill out the questionnaire and return it to the on-site interviewer. Otherwise, return the completed questionnaire in the enclosed envelope. Every individual’s response will remain confidential. But statistical summary measures will be used for analysis of the industry and made available to the public.

All of the questions ask for energy use or cost on a “per gallon of non-denatured ethanol basis.”

I'm glad you introduced and used as you did Wang's comparative numbers for gasoline and ethanol. It is one of the greatest examples of "special interest science" working hand in glove with industry that I have ever seen. Actual, meaningful well to pump or life cycle comparisons between liquid fuels is actually pretty easy to lay out and understand - if that is your goal. It is also very easy to muddy the waters and provide fodder for misinformation should that be your goal.

In the effort of Wang's that you cite, it is clearly the latter - he is deliberately creating unneeded and irrelevant comparisons that serve only one purpose - as your use illustrates.

What Wang does is to exclude the "coproducts" of both ethanol and crude petroleum.

If you say it fast and never think about it again, that sounds great, but if you look at the actual products excluded this is what you'll see:

Ethanol:
cattle feed equivalent to hay.

Petroleum:
Liquified petroleum gas (LPG)
Naphtha
Kerosene and related jet aircraft fuels
Diesel fuel
Fuel oils
Lubricating oils
Paraffin wax
Asphalt and tar
Petroleum coke

The inequity involved in drawing the boundary at "gasoline" is nothing short of astounding. A similar (and related) pattern of abuse in drawing the data boundaries is evident when the energy inputs to both are examined, but it is a bit more difficult to illustrate than the exclusion of the energy value of liquid fuel products like LNG, diesel, kerosene and jet fuels. As a culture our goal is to replace ALL liquid fossil fuels and it is remarkably dishonest of Wang to take this approach.

And then as if that weren't enough, there is the complete lack of comparison to the alternative of electricity as an energy carrier for personal transportation. In that "well to wheels" analysis the internal combustion engine, powered by any fuel, is shown to be the real problem.

We need liquid biofuels in a world of sustainable, renewable energy; but policies to promote the use of corn or cellulosic ethanol for personal transportation are counter-productive to the effort to fight climate change.

Ethanol as you are selling it is, in short, a boondoggle.

[Bill USA]

20. I think the document linked to will provide readers some insight to you.

[guardian]

21. You cartoon signature contributes to global warming!

I need a 35" monitor just to fit it on my screen.

[Bill USA]

23. sorry, try View - Zoom to 50%.

[Bill USA]

24. here's one of more manageable size. (My bad)

[guardian]

27. Thanks. It wasn't necessary as I was joking. n/t

[Bill USA]

22. I'm not interested in philosophy (or religion). It doesn't matter what you call it. You can put it

in an internal combustion engine and it will run. Thus is replaces a fossil fuel which when combusted ADDS CO2 to the atmosphere. The combustion of a renewable fuel does produce CO2 but at least it was Carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere during photosynthesis.

Humans do not create energy we just manipulate its manner of storage (if you prefer) and delivery. You can call any molecule that can produce energy (given the right conditions) a store of energy.

Perhaps you would prefer if i said the source of the energy was the sun which enabled the plants to perform photosynthesis forming the molecules that when fermented produced alcohol. ... But then a physicist would demur and say what I should have said was the source of the energy was the Weak Force which enables fusion to take place in the Sun. Then another physicist would speak up saying: "AH, but you cannot rule out gravitation as that is what provides the crushing force that produces the tremendous heat necessary to achieve fusion!". Then another physicist would interject: "Ah but thou canst not have gravitation without mass. The mass provided by enormous 'masses' of hydrogen gas which gradually formed the sun." Where-upon physicist 2 would respond - "Yes, but what brought those masses of Hydrogen gasses together... GRAVITY! I tell you!" .... then Billy Graham would jump up and say "God is the source of everything! THAT is the FINAL ANSWER...TO EVERYTHING!"

Personally I'm not interested in semantical distinctions. What is important is that ethanol can be burned in an Inernal combustion engine, like gasoline can (another 'store' of energy), making a car GO. Thus the ethanol replaces gasoline in our cars. {And everyone in the scientific community realizes that you get more energy out in the ethanol fuel (sorry, store of energy) than was consumed to make it. Replacing a fossil fuel with a renewable fuel means you can burn the renewable fuel without adding to the CO2 in the atmosphere.

You can take issue with the term "bi-product" credit as meaning something different than "co-Product" credit but nobody will care. They will just burn the ethanol in their car - unless they have a symantical objection to doing so - in which case we will see the price of oil go rapidly upward and our economy go rapidly downward (in terms of growth and employment rates) and many people will be riding bicycles.

Please be sure to keep prattling on about the philosphy of names. Meanwhile, millions of miles will be driven on billions of gallons of ethanol and billions of gallons of gas will NOT have been burned. Also, hundreds of millions of barrels of oil will not be imported which will help our economy as well as the planet.

[Bill USA]

26. here is a critique of your 'expert' from Farrell, Plevin, Turner, O'hare, Jones & Kammen

http://rael.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/EBAMM/FarrellEthanolScience012706.pdf">Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals - Science - 2006


To better understand the energy and environmental implications of ethanol, we surveyed the
published and gray literature and present a comparison of six studies illustrating the range
of assumptions and data found for the case of corn-based (Zea mays, or maize) ethanol.

~~
~~
{in the following paragraph they refer to papers by Patzek and Pimentel_Bill-USA]

Two of the studies stand out from the others
because they report negative net energy values
and imply relatively high GHG emissions and
petroleum inputs (11, 12). The close evaluation
required to replicate the net energy results showed
that these two studies also stand apart from the
others by incorrectly assuming that ethanol
coproducts (materials inevitably generated when
ethanol is made, such as dried distiller grains with
solubles, corn gluten feed, and corn oil) should
not be credited with any of the input energy and
by including some input data that are old and
unrepresentative of current processes, or so
poorly documented that their quality cannot be
evaluated (tables S2 and S3).




11. T. Patzek, Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 23, 519 (2004).
12. D. Pimentel, T. Patzek, Nat. Resour. Res. 14, 65 (2005).

[Bill USA]

28. again referring to Farrell et al, the spreadsheet, they show Wang's 1999 data with

total input energy (before allocations of input energy to co-products) of 18.374 MJ per Liter which is less than the 21.2 MJ/ Liter recognized as the value for Ethanol fuel. This is before calculating any allocation of energy to co-Products and note that 18.4 is LESS THAN 21.2.


http://rael.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/EBAMM/

http://rael.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/EBAMM/EBAMM_1_1.xls">Link to down load excel spreadsheet

[CHIMO]

4. GIGO

The most efficient conversion of organic material into energy is into combust it.
All the carbon will be converted to CO2, all the hydrogen will be converted into water.

In converting organics to ethanol, energy is used. The carbon that is not left over in ethanol is converted to CO2 in the process of creating ethanol. Just ask any one who makes home made wine.

If one wants to reduce CO2 production, ethanol is a joke. Tax dollars going to producers who are producing the carbon dioxide. If a CO2 tax was implemented on production of CO2, food to ethanol would disappear instantly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel

[Nihil]

5. Quelle surprise ...

> The Grain Farmers of Ontario have proclaimed that the food versus fuel debate
> should be over with the release of a new report that says farmers can serve
> both markets.
>
> The study ... they say “should put an end to the ongoing debate of whether the
> grain we grow should be used for food or fuel. We can and should do both.”

My, my ... the people who profit the most from growing grain for fuel say
that they "can and should do both" in order to maximise their profits.

Well that's a really surprising outcome from their "study" ...

:eyes:

I am reminded of past "discussion threads" involving studies funded by the
wind industry that say wind is best, studies funded by the nuclear industry
that say nuclear is best, studies funded by the gas industry that say gas
is best, studies funded by the coal industry that say that "clean coal"
is best, ...

:shrug:

[Confusious]

8. The skyrocketing price of food adds to case

That this is bullshit.

[Bill USA]

17. check out the corn portion of total retail food price vs petroleum related costs as a % of total

U.S. exports have held steady during the time of great build-up of ethanol (to meet demand from oil industry to replace MTBE). From 2009 on, the annual increase in ethanol production and demand for corn has been far below the big growth years from 2004 through 2009.

The cost of corn as a farm commodity (this is known as the 'Gate Price") represents about 1.6% of the retail cost of all food sold in U.S. How can this be? Farm commodities over-all represent about 11.4% of the retail price of food. The other 88.6% goes to what's called "marketing" costs. These are all the costs added on after the commodity leaves the farm. And how much is corn of the total of all farm commodities sold...about 14%. So, 14% of 11.4% comes to about 1.6% of the retail price for all food.

retail price of food:

The Congressional Budget office concluded in 2007-2009 timeframe ethanol increased the price of corn from 15% to 24%. That would mean it added to the retail price of food about .2% to .38%.

But how much do petroleum related costs (fuel, chemicals) add to the cost of food? Petroleum (fuel and chemicals) represents about 5% of the total retail cost of food. (don't forget petroleum costs hit both at the farm level and in the marketing cost level too).

Now Ethanol, by supplying almost 10% of our fuel supply in 2010 lowered the price of gas at least 15%. Francisco Blanch, Chief Commodities Strategist for Merrill Lynch stated that ethanol was lowering the price of petroleum about 15% - in 2008! -( Wall Street Journal April 2008). In 2008, ethanol was meeting about 4.6% of our personal transportation fuel needs. Today it's meeting almost 10% of those needs.

Bu let's be very conservative and say ethanol is reducing the price of petroleum 15%. That means that ethanol, by lowering the price of petroleum 15%, is lowering the price of food about .7%. So the net result of increasing the price of corn AND reducing the cost of petroleum comes to a lowering of the price of food from -.3% to -.4%.

It's a very small difference but it is a reduction.

[pscot]

11. I does sort of leap out at you

But they have a right to make their best case.

[Bill USA]

18. see how this "leaps out at you"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x292826#293183

[Fledermaus]

10. With the addition of a proposed $45M electricity facility, ethanol plant will become a closed loop

The only byproduct of a biogas plant is fertilizer. With a Biogas plant, the Kawartha Ethanol facility can close the loop on nutrients and can help eliminate the use of fertilizers made from natural gas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UafRz3QeO8">How does a biogas plant work?

The facility will be located on the former 3M site near Drain Bros. Excavating and Kawartha Ethanol, a company which uses corn from area farmers to make the fuel additive ethanol.

The "wet cake" left over from the process will be used to create biogas which, in turn, will be combusted to create electricity and heat, said Derek Neil, vice-president of NWM Canada, the company that will build the digester.

"Instead of using the wet cake as feed for cattle, we are taking it and using it to create a high quality fuel called biogas," Neil said during a recent open house at the Havelock Community Centre.

The digester will be located a few hundred yards from the main Kawartha Ethanol facility, he said. The wet cake will be piped into the digester and broken down by naturally occurring micro-organisms, using anaerobic digestion to produce the biogas. The high-efficiency internal combustion engine then creates electricity on site that can be sold to the Hydro One grid, Neil said.

"And with the electricity created from the engines is heat, so we can also offset the heat used at the ethanol plant, which also lowers the natural gas consumption. It's almost a closed loop system."

http://www.communitypress-online.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3071326