Study Says Ethanol Not Worth the Energy

At our last Sierra Club chapter meeting, we had 2 speakers on ethanol. One from a plant that makes it (alos used to work in the oil industry) and the other a professor at my alma mater, SD School of Mines and Tech.

Both had their points. The ethanol person did admit his case FOR etanol did not include numbers with respect to growing the corn, but the net result of the processing was a plus.

The professor basically said it's a negative energy producer even with new efficiencies in manufacturing and corn yields. He said the way this country uses oil, the ethanol would be less than 1% of the imports.

I'm not sure what to think, but I tend to believe the negative energy situation. So much farming is done using oil and oil-based products, isn't it?

The oil/ethanol guy was real nice but I just couldn't buy into his numbers. It seems it IS renewable, but as the prof said, we're growing stuff to burn instead of eat or feed animals that we eat or derive other products from.

Plus the fact that, of course the ethanol supporters can give such great numbers. I can too if my source of income relied on it! "Sure Bill, my work here is totally a net gainer, I'm not just sucking down MORE energy, I'm producing it".

What's wrong with creating a better market for the other alternative energy sources (wind, solar, maybe hydro)? What kinds of numbers are they coming up with?

Just wondering if conservation of a depleting energy source will EVER come into play. Use less, which pollutes less, which should cost less, but somehow it doesn't work that way...

 

This is not new. The controversy over ethanol goes back to it's inception.

The idea is research. Or at least this is the justification. However, like Finman2 above, I think the evidence is shaky that it can ever be a solution to our problem. And it just does not seem right to me for us to be using fertilizer to contribute to our lifestyle. There is limited amounts of fertilizer in the world. Our using lots of it to make ethanol puts our gas tanks in competition with other people in the world's stomachs. This doesn't feel right to me.


On the plus side for ethanol, making ethanol is not a simple energy in energy out equation. We need to figure out not only a good energy source, but an energy source that is portable enough to go in cars and trucks. And if we can find a solution that does not require a completely new infrastructure like hydrogen would, that would be a plus.

Personally, I think the Prius is the better answer as it is spurring more battery research. As batteries get smaller and smaller and more and more powerful and quicker to get fully charged, they just might supplant ethanol and/ or hydrogen as the solution to our transportation future. Ironically, other technologies that are spurring battery research are the cell phone industry and laptop computers. I find it intriguing that a cell phone battery breakthrough could solve our energy storage problems.

I see it evolving this way, first the hybrid, then the plug in hybrid that over time goes farther and farther from the power it got from the grid. Then one day, this hybrid goes so far without the need for gasoline that they decide the ICE in the hybrid is no longer needed so it is removed. First in some cars, then over time in every one. Revolution by evolution.

But even then there is a problem. Where is society going to get all that electricity?

So there are really two problems. Making enough energy without fossil fuels, and then having that energy in a portable form for our cars and trucks.

Ethanol could theoretically help with the second problem, but it seems to be making the first problem worse.

Thanks for reminding us of this dilemma.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"108212)</div>

Well, to be sure we need to tap what's readily available and there. Wind, where it's feisable, tidal power, and solar are low hanging fruit that will pay some dividends.

But we also need to move on nuclear again. For the little waste that is produced, you get tons of energy output. And modern reactors (pebble bed) are very safe and clean compared to the old TMI style reactors.

Ethanol is just a red herring. You're right... batteries are the future.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26\";p=\"108214)</div>

I'm not convinced that nuclear is a bad idea, but I do wonder if MUCH more conservation, coupled with solar and wind R&D that equals the amount of R&D that has been spent on nuclear, could obviate the need for nuclear.

I can't get it out of my head that the reason we keep hearing about how nuclear has improved, and that it is such a wonderful solution has more to do with market forces than with science. Nuclear plants allow for the centralization of the production of power, and thus a centralization of the profits from that production.

If wind and solar supplant the need for monstrous power plants, profits cannot be concentrated. Everyone will have their own power plant on their roof. Yes, people will need to buy those power plants, but there would likely be thousands of providers, and you would not be buying those power plants every month forever, like we now pay oil & electric bills.

Personally, I think this is the real reason solar and wind are minimized as a solution, and nuclear is back in the news as some kind of panacea.

And as of 2005, the ratio of money spent in R&D in nuclear is probably about 500 to 1 as compared to the R&D dollars spent on solar and wind, over the last 50 years.

And you get what you pay for.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"108217)</div>

I've looked extensively at getting a solar roof on my house when the roof needs to be replaced (in the next 4 or 5 years), and right now it isn't really a viable solution yet. It can, on a good day, produce most of the energy you need. But on a house like mine (smallish cape cod) it may not be able to power the AC. And I'd like my refrigerator to run at night, thanks.

There's a good argument for a centralized and always available power system.

 

You are absolutely right, solar in 2005 is not the answer. But this is not what I said.

We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on nuclear R&D in the past 50 years. I doubt we have yet reached 500 million for solar R&D in the last 50 years.

Just think how much further along we would be if we had.

And the wind blows at night, and batteries can store energy at night. And the tide is 24/7.

Again, I think there is a strong argument that the reason we have not spent much money, as compared to nuclear and in perfecting the ICE, is because of the business models of the respective technologies, NOT because of the science of the respective technologies. Those technologies that allow for the concentration of profits get funding up the yazoo. Those do not hold this promise get token funding.

And just by having large power plants you do not solve the "always available" problem. The American grid right now is criss crossed with back ups after back ups. If we had wind and solar and tide, and yes even hydroelectric and a nuclear plant of two, and good battery or other storage of that power, we would have an always available system.

Thus, I think there is an even better argument for a decentralized system that will always be available.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"108217)</div>

I would have to say yes, or at least it would obviate most of the "need" for more energy. And Yes, the reason why Nuclear is an "option" is politics, not true science. At best pseudo-science, at worst outright lies.

When I built my home in the Burbs almost 5 years ago, I went with the most energy-efficient construction methods, HVAC, and appliances possible. By deleting the frilly extras (Dramatic trayed ceilings, arches, columns, other trinkety visual candy) my home was the same finished cost as a fancier-looking home next to it.

Trouble is, the fancier-looking home next to mine blew the budget on all the trinkety frilly crap, so they had to put in the cheapest windows and HVAC.

I put in an R60 roof, 2x6 walls with blown-in expanding foam insulation, tripane windows with dual Argon and Low E, Bryant Evolution furnace and A/C (Also an HRV due to how tight my home was), Kenmore Elite front loading washer, and many CF lights.

My utility bills (Natural gas, electricity, and water) where at least 1/2, usually 1/3 that of my neighbors. A lot of the credit for that goes to the Bryant Evolution HVAC: the furnace was rated 94% efficient, and the A/C was SEER 16. I also sealed and insulated the ductwork.

So while everybody is jumping on the More Nuclear Power bandwagon (Way more costly than the industry admits) or the Increased Oil Exploration bandwagon (Self serving and doesn't solve any problems), why not just use less?

I don't think I had to make any huge or gut-wrenching "sacrifices" to have a home that used 1/2 to 1/3 the energy as other similar size homes on the block. I didn't sit in the dark all the time, didn't set the heat for 50 F, the A/C for 85, or only take a bath once a month.

That's easy for me since I'm a Conservative in the very literal sense. I also have a healthy introverted sense of pride in myself, as I don't feel the need to show off to compensate for a tiny, unreliable, and inferior reproductive organ - like most folks do.

Some of the pundits will claim that all these energy saving measures require incentives, ie taxpayer money to offer rebates, etc. What a crock.

Like we don't already offer HUGE incentives, courtesy of the generous taxpayer, to the oil industry, the transportation industry, electricity industry, etc?

If you examine all the input costs, that is the "real" costs, of a new nuclear power plant, then the "cost" of allowing everybody in that area to retrofit the most energy-efficient HVAC and appliances possible, the more efficient appliances are almost always cheaper.

Let's not forget the proposed "smart" appliances and HVAC that can operate based on overall system load. This already exists on a much smaller scale, such as the load-shedding IntelliTec:

http://www.intellitecmv.com/intellitec-pmc.htm

So imagine if overall electrical load is light, intelligent networked HVAC would allow something like the A/C to ramp a lower setpoint and cool down to a much lower temperature, at a higher compressor speed and system fan speed. The electric dryer will operate at high heat, etc.

If overall electrical load is heavy, then non-critical appliances and HVAC could perform load shedding. For example, the A/C compressor will switch to a low speed operation to only maintain setpoint, not lower it. Or the electric clothes dryer will reduce heating.

If overall electrical load is nearing a critical peak, then more automatic load shedding will occur: A/C will lock-out, electric dryer will stop, electric range will shut off, etc.

When you consider that most politicians are reluctant to offer extreme appliance or HVAC rebates, but then gladly shovel out money to boondoggles, it makes you wonder.

As an example the CANDU nuclear reactors in Ontario have needed unanticipated and exotically expensive repairs. It's the same basic design as Chernobyl, which makes sense as the Russians copied most of it. They use a Pressure Tube design, hundreds of pressure tubes inside the Moderator, in the case of CANDU that would be deuterium or "heavy" water.

Without question this is the most efficient power reactor design in the world. It's also suitable to "breeding" as the typical fuel cycle doesn't require shutting down the entire reactor, each pressure tube can be individually serviced. The plutonium yield from such a reactor is often 50%, compared to <5% in a conventional light water pressurized reactor.

Problem is, the pressure tubes developed cracks. In theory, under light power loads, an explosion like Chernobyl could have happened. So all the CANDU reactors need new pressure tubes. For Ontario alone, around $8-15 billion Cdn.

So I think that before rushing off into building more nuclear power plants, and conveniently forgetting about what to do about the waste, we should look at the Demand side first. Imagine if we could reduce demand to 1/2 or 1/3.

However, that may very well put under the power companies. So it will never be done.

 

another spin article based on one study. not a problem...i can spin the topic the other way very easily.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewab...e.cfm?pageID=78

 

Jay, once again you are right on with your post! As I have said before, you consider yourself a conservative and I consider myself a forward-thinking liberal, but we always agree on the major stuff you post. They say the USA is pretty evenly divided, but judging by your posts and our self-declared polar-opposites, it appears we are very much alike which begs the question "why are we led to believe in this country we are so divided?" when judging by the above we are more 'together' than anyone could have thought? I extrapolate that if we are so parallel in most of our thinking and beliefs than where we differ we should celebrate those differences, not tear each other apart. And who gains from keeping the tension between conservatives and liberals? Oops, am I hijacking this thread?

 

Hello John:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn\";p=\"108240)</div>

I've always thought it had much more to do with how you were raised and how much "common sense" you have. Despite my college education, my folks (Grade 6 and Grade 8 education) really emphasized "common sense" first.

So judging by that, we have a lot of forum members here with common sense.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn\";p=\"108240)</div>

There is a lot of money to be made in various PAC's, newspapers chasing the "truth" (HA ha right ...), politicos grandstanding the Issue Of The Moment, etc. Hopefully one day we'll all get enough Common Sense to slap them upside the head and take care of real issues.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn\";p=\"108240)</div>

Sure, that's what makes life interesting and worth living. Take my Mom and Dad, "together" since 1946 and "officially" together since 1960. It turned out the first preacher was a sham, so they Lived In Sin all those years. Hehehehe.

You couldn't find two people more opposite in their attitudes and opinions, yet rather than constant bickering (Occaisional bickering is to be expected from any couple), it has kept them together and closer over the years. I would consider them very politically and financially Conservative, but they also have a Live And Let Live attitude.

When people are afraid of themselves, their problems, and the world in general, all they know is to tear down other people. I know the world can be a scary place, but you don't see me out there plotting to kill other people either. We had better learn to deal with things. So in that sense I'm a Realist or a Pragmatic, which.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn\";p=\"108240)</div>

Hehehehe I think I already covered that one John! Thar's money in them thar hills!

Jay

 

This argument is that same one used against hydrogen. However, has anyone considered that the same argument could be made against electricity?

Power generators that consume fossil fuels have conversion inefficiencies too. I have no idea what they would be, but I'm going to give them a probably optimistic 10%. If so, then a generating plant produces 90% of the energy that it consumes.

Now you get to add in transmission inefficiencies. If have read in numerous places, including the energy department websites of the US and Australia, that the power loss across the power grid equals approximately 10%. That would be 10% of the 90%, so by the time power gets to the consumer, you are down to 81% of the energy that existed in the fossil fuels that produced the electricity.

Alright, now we are down to the battery. Reading around, I've seen numbers between 65% and 95% charging efficiency for NiMH batteries. Quite a few references cite 85%, so I will choose that for illustration. So, if you apply 85% to our current number of 81%, you get 69%.

So, out of your battery flows 69% of the energy that was in the fossil fuels that produced the electricity.

Now compare that with the numbers used to attack ethanol and hydrogen.

Now I will admit that using 4 gallons of gasoline to produce 3 gallons of ethanol to be used in place of gasoline is pretty stupid. But what if you could develop a way to produce ethanol without using fossil fuels?

By now, I know at least a dozen of you are going to reply with tales of research and advancements in battery technology. You are going to tell me about these wonderful batteries that they are developing that have 98% charging efficiencies and can charge in minutes. However, these batteries are not available today are they? They are still in ongoing research.

One thing I'm curious about... If you are so willing to embrace future research in batteries and the marvelous advancements this research will bring, why do you reject out of hand the possibility of marvelous advancements from the research of ethanol and hydrogen production and hydrogen fuel cells?

Oh, and by the way, if they do get the charging efficiency of batteries to 98%, then your battery will still only provide you with 79% of the energy contained in the fossil fuels used to charge the battery.

Personally, I'm leery about ethanol, because even if they work out the efficiency problems, it will take too much land to produce it.

My favorite is still hydrogen. And I think the production method that makes the most sense is to mount windmills on tanker ships and sail them out in the open ocean to produce the hydrogen. A German company is experimenting with just this concept. The beauty of it is that the open ocean contains large amounts of free energy in the form of wind. This is energy that can't be utilized without a practical mechanism for storing and transporting it. That mechanism is hydrogen. They other beautiful thing about it is that ships, windmills, and electrolysis of water are all well known and mature technologies. It's just a matter of putting them all together.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin\";p=\"108263)</div>

Actually, the total loss factor from input to consumer for the electricity cycle is far worse than that. Usually, you only get "out" around 10-15% of what you put "in."

Power lines are horrendously inefficient, around half of total power line loss is simply heat. At higher voltages and odd frequencies, you may cut down the transmission loss but will introduce health effects and maintenance issues, such as corona on the lines and towers and interference with other devices.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin\";p=\"108263)</div>

I personally think ethanol and hydrogen have a lot of promise, but only if we can capture it from "waste" energy. I'm sure you'll agree it's a bit foolish to turn airable land into Ethanol farms, and I'm also sure you'll agree there is little benefit to having an exotic fuel cell powered by methane or propane to "make" hydrogen.

In an ideal state 1kg of hydrogen contains around 142 MJ of energy.

Current hydrogen storage methods haven't satisfied me because I have a lot of industrial experience with tank farms and high pressure storage. Hydrogen is far from an "ideal" gas so doesn't follow the Ideal Gas Law very well.

That is, if you double the storage pressure you do NOT double the energy content. More like a 20% gain. If you double again, only another 8-10%.

The energy content of 1 U.S. gallon or 3.78 litres of regular unleaded (131 Mega Joules, or 34.6 MJ/litre) is found in a standard 2,500 psi pressure cylinder that occupies 91 litres. That works out to around 1.6 MJ/litre of "energy." Hardly a good solution.

Even at 10,000 psi, hydrogen volume is 27 litres per kg, IOW 5.3 MJ/litre. Compression carries a fairly large energy "penalty" of about 10%.

Liquid storage may seem ideal, but remember that hydrogen would need cryostorage, a very expensive proposition. The hydrogen will also "migrate" through the tank walls too.

For liquid hydrogen, which vaporizes at -250 C or thereabouts, it occupies about 14 litres/kg and has an energy of 10 MJ/litre. The energy "penalty" of liquification is around 30% with current technology.

It currently works best to have hydrogen bound to a solid, which is known as a "hydride." A good example is LaNi5H6 (Lanthanum Nickle Hydride) which can dehydride and rehydride in usually 10 mins, operates at most at a few bars of pressure so very easy to handle, and has an equivilant energy a bit higher than liquid cryo hydrogen.

Unfortunately, the hydrogen content of LaNi5H6 is 1.4%, meaning for example 5 kg of hydrogen would require 360 kg of LaNi5H6.

The same catches apply to ethanol, methane, and other sources of energy. What surprises me is how we don't capture the "waste" energy but pursue the feedstocks themselves.

As an example, due to my industrial process control background, I have a lot of experience with pulp and paper. Overall it's very wasteful: a lot of the trees harvested leave behind sawdust from chainsaws, limbs, branches, etc. Usually it's left "in situ" or put into a pile and burned.

Why aren't these castoff scraps gathered up, shoved into a digester, and turned into methane and a highly compacted, odorless sludge that is good for fertilizer??

Here in Manitoba, at least the southeast region, there are a lot of hog barns. These swine operations generate enormous amounts of liquid manure: a swine barn of 5,000 "units" will generate sewage like a city of 250,000.

Most of this liquid sewage is kept in open lagoons. It frequently runs off into potable water streams or enters the underground aquifer.

Why don't they gather the sewage up into digesters, get huge amounts of methane, burn the methane in microturbine power plants with post-treatment catalytics, and only have to deal with highly compacted and odorless sludge that can also be good for fertilizer?

There have been demonstration microturbine systems at swine operations, and the doubled initial investment - over a sewage lagoon - is usually ROI within 3 years by selling power and powering the entire operation internally.

I'm not saying these limitations won't be overcome, and I look forward to something like Mr Fusion running my car like in Back To The Future. As a realist/pragmatic I also feel we need to step back, smell the coffee, and get real.

Jay

 

Solar is a viable answer here in NJ and in other areas with a good rebate program. I have a 9.99kw system on my roof which will generate over 12,000 kwh a year. Thanks to the state rebate program they paid 70% of the cost of the system and it will pay for itself in under 4 years. I would be glad to give anyone here info on the system if they like.

 

NY state does not offer as good a rebate program as NJ but they do offer a state income tax deduction or credit (forget which) in addition to their rebate program. Check the LIPA web page and they should have some info.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"108212)</div>

I would agree with your assessment. I haven't researched it even to know the numbers, but it just seems counterintuitive to grow all this corn using all of these fossil fuels to replace other fossils fuels. I have heard of some mention of using the byproducts of corn or the "extra" from food production (but I don't know if this is feasible).

Either way, it seems like it would take a massive amount of corn to make much of a dent in our overall oil demand.

I would pose a third problem as well, decreasing consumption. It seems that when we have cheap means of energy we use more and more. I would hate for ethanol or other alternative energy sources being stated, only to see no change in our overall oil demand (even after accounting for growth).

 

I'm convinced that the only reasonable way to make hydrogen is from sea water using wind power. We can't use inland fresh water, because there's not enough of it. We already have water battles in the south west, and as populations increase, so too will the fresh water demand in other parts of the US.

Hydrogen production on ocean going ships is ideal. Wind energy in the open ocean is plentiful and can't be put to practical use anyway, unless you've got a way to store it and transport it. And since water is plentiful in the open ocean, what better way is there to store and transport the wind energy than hydrogen? And when you are using free wind energy that can't be used otherwise, it doesn't really matter how efficient the hydrogen production is, as long as the process is economically viable. If the electricity produced by a fuel cell is only 1/3 of the wind-generated electricity used to produce the hydrogen, who cares?

We get most of our oil by ship anyhow, so there are energy distribution industries already located at our ports. Imagine fleets of hydrogen producing ships off the east and west coasts. They sail out 100 miles to where ever the winds are strong and sit around for a week producing hydrogen. Once the tanks are full, they sail back into port.

A German company has produced one such ship: Hydrogen-producing ship will use wind

And some pictures: HYDROGEN CHALLENGER

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(micheal\";p=\"108437)</div>

Micheal:

Ah, "Jevons Paradox" has come back to haunt us:

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

The only way a "new" source of energy will work is if dramatic increases in demand don't outstrip the supply.

Jay

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin\";p=\"108504)</div>

Marlin:

I had to think about this and look it up - all while pretending to be busy at work. A similar sort of idea was floated by the SF author Frederik Pohl in "Drunkard's Walk."

Instead of the ships having windmills, they operated on capturing wave motion. They were so large he called them "Texas." The overpopulation was so bad that folks even lived on the contraptions.

In the case of the hydrogen challenger electrolysis works fine, since you're just using an energy source that is way underutilized anyway. I still have a problem with how to store the hydrogen.

The safest would be in a hydride, though at the usual 1-2% hydrogen content you need an enormous amount of hydride to have any useful hydrogen.

As you have already guessed, I'm not a big fan of gas storage. I have a lot of respect for high pressure cylinders, and shudder to think of these 10,000-20,000 psi cylinders shooting through the air like rockets after an accident.

At least we are seeing creative and useful research in this field. I hope they do make some sort of breakthrough.

Jay