Vinod Khosla Debunked: Ethanol is NOT the Answer

[4dsc]

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/7/24/202222/351

Another good presentation by Robert Rapier

Who is Vinod Khosla?

When an influential person begins to affect energy policy decisions - decisions that will have a huge impact on all of our lives - we better take a critical look at the claims that person is pushing. You can't discuss ethanol for long with an ethanol proponent without having them mention the endorsement of Vinod Khosla. If you don't know who Khosla is, here are a couple of blurbs from his Wikipedia biography:

Vinod Khosla is an Indian American venture capitalist who is considered one of the most successful and influential personalities in Silicon Valley. He was one of the co-founders of Sun Microsystems and became a general partner of the venture capital firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers in 1986. In 2004 he formed Khosla Ventures.

Vinod was featured on Dateline NBC on Sunday, May 7, 2006. He was discussing the practicality of the use of ethanol as a gasoline substitute. He is known to have invested heavily in ethanol companies, in hopes of widespread adoption. He cites Brazil as an example of a country who has totally ended their dependence on foreign oil.



If Khosla’s credibility wasn’t already in tatters, then it should be now. The energy balance of corn ethanol is significantly worse than for gasoline. The 1.2 for ethanol versus 0.8 for petroleum is comparing apples and oranges. They are looking at an efficiency in the case of petroleum, but an EROEI in the case of ethanol. If you want to compare apples to apples, the EROEI for petroleum, even in a poor field, is 10/1 or better. Throw in the refining step, which is also 10/1, and you have an EROEI of 5/1 or better for gasoline, compared to 1.2 or so for corn ethanol. On the other hand, the efficiency of corn ethanol is 20-30% (versus the 80% he mentions for petroleum). If you doubt this, do a simple experiment. Let’s say you have 1 BTU of energy to invest. Tell me how many BTUs you will end up with if you invest into ethanol, versus investing into petroleum. Work the problem out, and you will see why Khosla’s claim, repeated by ethanol proponents everywhere, is completely bogus.

[bluerum]

1. Then what is the answer? We should keep fighting over oil until

the last barrel is sucked out of the earth?

edit for punctuation.

[brokensymmetry]

2. There is only one answer, ultimately.

The energy footprint of the human race will decrease.

That could mean much less energy use by each member of
the existing population.

I expect, instead, that it will mean the die-off of
5 billion during a span of decades.

[bluerum]

3. die off - or kill off in the fight for oil?

[Fridays Child]

6. Die-off or kill-off. Probably both. How balance is restored...

...doesn't really matter to the Earth.

[bluerum]

7. I think ethanol deserves a chance. It does not have to be made from corn.

Ethanol production methods and are far from optimised. The ethanol combustion process that cars use is far from optimized. Our urban landscape is far from optimized - it requires far too much travel and commuting.

Economic pressure will force us to explore ethanol as a fuel source.

[elocs]

4. ethanol is not the answer unless you are are corn farmer or ADM

Americans want that single magic bullet that will replace petroleum and allow us to continue our wasteful ways unchanged. Ethanol is not the answer and probably not even one of the answers. Anybody trying to sell anyone on ethanol probably has a financial interest in promoting it. Corn is an energy intensive crop that requires a lot of fertilizers, water, and it also depletes the topsoil. There is not enough acreage in the U.S. to use to grow corn for ethanol to replace any significant amount of our petroleum use. Ethanol also has 1/3 less BTUs per unit compared to gas for energy use. You have to burn 1/3 more ethanol to go the same distance as the same amount of gas will take you.

[On the Road]

5. I Suspect the Most Wasteful Method of Ethanol Production

is being promoted because it's based on energy-intensive big agriculture.

I think the jury is still out on whether ethanol can be produced cheaply and efficiently enough to replace petroleum. The thermal depolymerization is a promising avenue, because it uses existing materials. Other methods that don't rely on traditional agriculture might work, too.

So personally I don't doubt the article's criticisms, but wouldn't give up on ethanol quite yet.

[tom_servo]

8. Is Michael Wang also wrong?

http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/PDF/03_28_05ArgonneNatlLabEthanolStudy.pdf

[4dsc]

9. Yes..

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/03/grain-derived-ethanol-emperors-new.html

[Robert Rapier]

10. Hello

Just checked my site meter, and found this thread.

Yes, Michael Wang is wrong. I have corresponded with Wang, and he admitted that he is using some "unconventional" metrics in order to promote ethanol. If it was "all that", he wouldn't have to. He shows an efficency of gasoline (0.8) versus an EROI of ethanol (around 1.2). Proponents then claim that ethanol is more efficient to produce. But this comparison is apples and oranges. The efficiency of ethanol is about 0.2 versus 0.8 for gasoline, and the EROI of gasoline is about 5, versus 1.2 for ethanol.

Khosla and I have exchanged 5 e-mails since yesterday. He wants to have a conversation this week to discuss which parts of his argument I think he has gotten completely wrong. He indicated that he prefers not to debate in public. I sent him a laundry list of issues, and asked him to think those over, and then we can talk. In response, he sent me a draft of a paper he is working on to review before we talk. Should be interesting. I have nothing personally against the man, but I believe his optimistic claims on ethanol are misleading a lot of people into thinking we aren't facing a very serious problem.

Cheers,

Robert Rapier

[4dsc]

11. Thanks for the comments Robert

It will be intesting to see what becomes of you email exchange with Khosla and his belief about ethanol. I look forward to the next step, whatever it may be..