Why Grain based ethanol sucks....

Topspin said:
I think your comical freak with the takes more energy to produce joke.
5 BILLION gallons produced by people 10x smarter than both of us.
Obviously gasoline is better, but ethonal by many methods is economically and strategically critical.
Click to expand...

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/july05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html

"In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:

corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced"

"Although Pimentel advocates the use of burning biomass to produce thermal energy (to heat homes, for example), he deplores the use of biomass for liquid fuel. "The government spends more than $3 billion a year to subsidize ethanol production when it does not provide a net energy balance or gain, is not a renewable energy source or an economical fuel. Further, its production and use contribute to air, water and soil pollution and global warming," Pimentel says. He points out that the vast majority of the subsidies do not go to farmers but to large ethanol-producing corporations. "
 
Superfreak said:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/july05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html

"In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:

corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced"

"Although Pimentel advocates the use of burning biomass to produce thermal energy (to heat homes, for example), he deplores the use of biomass for liquid fuel. "The government spends more than $3 billion a year to subsidize ethanol production when it does not provide a net energy balance or gain, is not a renewable energy source or an economical fuel. Further, its production and use contribute to air, water and soil pollution and global warming," Pimentel says. He points out that the vast majority of the subsidies do not go to farmers but to large ethanol-producing corporations. "
Click to expand...

Ethanol is not a renewable energy source ???
 
Superfreak said:
I agree... while cellulosic based ethanol production is more difficult than grain based, it is the better option of the two. Though cellulosic still burns more energy to produce it than it in turn puts out.

As the article mentions... subsidies tend to be dangerous, because once in place... lobbyists tend to line the pockets of politicians to make sure they never go away. Perfect example.... the oil industry pushing hard to keep their subsidies. They got them while we kept oil artificially low druing the 70's-90's and now that oil is high, they still lobby (a.k.a. BRIBE) the politicians to keep them.
Click to expand...
The only reason ethanol for any source "burns more energy" to produce than it puts out is we are still using a fossil fuel dependent energy infrastructure. Included in the manufacturing energy cost are transportation, which of course use fossil fuel burning trucks. Energy for the manufacturing plants use fossil fuel derived sources, etc. It is going to take a lot of work, including putting up with a period of time when it "takes more energy to produce ethanol than it saves". But once the switch over truly gets started, we'll start using renewable energy sources to help produce renewable energy sources. Until we reach that point, we will not see a reduction in the use of fossil fuels. But once we DO reach that point, we will see a rapid reduction in fossil fuel use which will only accelerate as our energy infrastructure continues to shift to renewable sources.
 
uscitizen said:
If corn is not a renewable energy source then nothing is I suppose.

Heck I can grow new corn every year.
Click to expand...

Perhaps my definition isn't correct. To me, solar, wind, geothermal are sources of renewable energy because we do not have to produce anything to continue their use.

Whereas you have to grow new crops every year to produce the biofuel. I'll leave open the possibility that I am incorrect in the definition.
 
Superfreak said:
Perhaps my definition isn't correct. To me, solar, wind, geothermal are sources of renewable energy because we do not have to produce anything to continue their use.

Whereas you have to grow new crops every year to produce the biofuel. I'll leave open the possibility that I am incorrect in the definition.
Click to expand...

I forget the name for them...
Perpetual ? But nothing lasts forever.
 
Superfreak said:
No... it is an alternate energy source, but not renewable.
Click to expand...
Yes, ethanol is a renewable energy source. It is the very definition of renewable energy source. Once we have switched to renewable fuels, it will become a cycle. Each year a new crop (be it corn or switch grass) is grown (ie: renewed, using the very CO2 from the air produced burning last year's crop) and turned into fuels usable by our energy infrastructure.

Again, the critics are basing their criticism on the fact that our infrastructure is based on fossil fuels. A such we are forced to use fossil fuels to produce alternate fuels, because our energy infrastructure uses fossil fuels. Switching to renewable fuels is not going to be like flipping a switch from one to the other. We will need to start producing alternate fuels in quantity first, and start using those alternates to switch sections of our energy infrastructure away from fossil fuels and toward renewable fuels. One thing is the ethanol plants themselves could use ethanol to heat the production vats, and use ethanol powered forklifts and other vehicles used in a manufacturing plant. But we will never break away from fossil fuels unless we are willing to put up with the relatively inefficient beginning step of using fossil fuel energy to get renewable energy on its feet.
 
Good Luck said:
Yes, ethanol is a renewable energy source. It is the very definition of renewable energy source. Once we have switched to renewable fuels, it will become a cycle. Each year a new crop (be it corn or switch grass) is grown (ie: renewed, using the very CO2 from the air produced burning last year's crop) and turned into fuels usable by our energy infrastructure.

Again, the critics are basing their criticism on the fact that our infrastructure is based on fossil fuels. A such we are forced to use fossil fuels to produce alternate fuels, because our energy infrastructure uses fossil fuels. Switching to renewable fuels is not going to be like flipping a switch from one to the other. We will need to start producing alternate fuels in quantity first, and start using those alternates to switch sections of our energy infrastructure away from fossil fuels and toward renewable fuels. One thing is the ethanol plants themselves could use ethanol to heat the production vats, and use ethanol powered forklifts and other vehicles used in a manufacturing plant. But we will never break away from fossil fuels unless we are willing to put up with the relatively inefficient beginning step of using fossil fuel energy to get renewable energy on its feet.
Click to expand...

Just for my own education.... explain this to me....

IF biofuel produces "x" amount of energy and fossil fuels produce "x+y" energy how do you explain how this shift to biofuel producing biofuel will work?

Wouldn't it still take more biofuel to produce the new biofuel?
 
Superfreak said:
Perhaps my definition isn't correct. To me, solar, wind, geothermal are sources of renewable energy because we do not have to produce anything to continue their use.

Whereas you have to grow new crops every year to produce the biofuel. I'll leave open the possibility that I am incorrect in the definition.
Click to expand...
Wind, solar, geothermal, etc. are not renewable because there is nothing renewed in the process of producing an energy product. In fact nothing is actually "used". It is merely converted from an energy type we cannot use directly into electricity which we can use. But they have become commonly referred to as "renewable" by usage in the media. (Our media has a bad habit of mislabeling things when they are new. They need to either increase their technical dept, or pay more attention to them.)

The technically correct term for these types of alternate energy sources is "non-consumptive" energy sources because the process does not consume any type of resource. The wind is gonna blow, and the sun is gonna shine regardless of whether we are converting part of that energy into something we can use or not. We already use one type of non-consumptive energy source in quantity: hydroelectric. But hydroelectric has pretty much maxed out. Can't dam too many more rivers without seriously screwing up our fresh water biomes.
 
Superfreak said:
Just for my own education.... explain this to me....

IF biofuel produces "x" amount of energy and fossil fuels produce "x+y" energy how do you explain how this shift to biofuel producing biofuel will work?

Wouldn't it still take more biofuel to produce the new biofuel?
Click to expand...
You need to pay more attention to how they phrase their criticism. Obviously if it took more net energy to produce ethanol than we derive from ethanol it would be a losing battle and not worth the effort. But that is not the case. What the criticism actually says (and they are correct at this stage in the game) is it take more FOSSIL FUELS to produce ethanol than the production of ethanol saves.

IOW, because ethanol use is in such an extremely narrow portion of our energy infrastructure, it does not replace a significant amount of fossil fuel use. So the fossil fuels used powering the harvesters that cut the crop, the trucks that deliver the crop, the power to heat and light the production facilities, power the production vats, power the vehicles that deliver the ethanol, all totals significantly more than the fossil fuels the resulting ethanol replaces.

The same is true for most renewable fuels.

But when we start replacing the fossil fuel powered energy infrastructure with infrastructure that uses non-consumptive or renewable energy sources, that ratio will change rapidly in favor of the alternative fuels. (Which is something the oil companies don't want us to realize.)
 
how efficient is oil to turn into gasoline and diesel ?

It is not a 100% efficient conversion either . I know that from driving past refineries.

Most people only compare the end product on poloution and carbon footprint when it is used. how about the extraction transport and refining process as well ?
 
Last edited:
uscitizen said:
how efficient is oil to turn into gasoline and diesel ?

It is not a 100% efficient conversion either . I know that from driving past refineries.

Most people only compare the end product on poloution and carbon footprint when it is used. how about the extraction transport and refining process as well ?
Click to expand...
It's not as bad as ethanol, since a gallon of refined gasoline contains a significantly higher level of chemical energy.

The fact remains, though, that the objection in these articles to ethanol is how much fossil fuels are used in the manufacture of ethanol. It is not because we are facing a net loss of energy, it is because it results in a net loss in fossil fuels.

But assuming we, as a society, make a commitment to switch our energy infrastructure to renewable energy sources, that problem will disappear. If we were to just use ethanol (or other renewable fuels) in fossil fuel electrical plants, and increase the production of renewable fuels to meet that demand, that move alone would shift the energy economy to a net savings in fossil fuels, with the saved coal being made available for liquifaction into clean burning diesel fuel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top