How sustainable is ethanol from corn?

I've listened to a lot of the debate this week about this, and I think that from corn, right now, it's just a little better. Although I wonder if all of the petroleum numbers really include all of the energy cost, etc. of oil. I think that is very difficult to quantify.

However, I think that from wood waste, corn stalks, and other biomass waste, it's much better, and that is where the market is headed right now. I know that Novozymes, at its NC facility that produces the enzymes, has been able to make ethanol from corn stalks now, but I don't think this is widely used yet. Still, I think ethanol will be better in the near future, although conservation needs to be emphasized much more than is has been, even if we can switch largely to ethanol in the next 10 to 15 years.

 

There are several issues involved and the assumptions one makes at the beginning have a great effect on the outcome of the analysis.

First of all. Ethanol, regardless of the source, is more "sustainable" than oil. Ethanol can be created in about 1 year... Grow a plant, process and ferment it. Oil takes about 1 million years to create... grow the plants and animals, bury them underground for a million years, pump it out and refine it.

Another issue if the carbon cycle. There is no doubt that we humans are putting more carbon into the atmosphere than was there prior to 200 years ago. It is likely, that this will affect our living environment. How much and when remains to be seen.

When we burn oil, we take carbon out of the ground and release most of it into the atmosphere. When we use ethanol, a plant it absorbs carbon (CO2) from the atmosphere. When we then process the plant and burn it, it is released back into the atmosphere. Assuming we continue to grow more plants, then the carbon is in a cycle and does not increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The area that is getting so much attention lately is whether or not ethanol production is efficient enough to be worthwhile. Basically, there are some published reports that say that there is more energy used in producing the ethanol than you get out of it. Obviously, we should not use ethanol if it takes more than a gallon of oil to produce a gallon of ethanol. The studies actually deal in energy rather than gallons, but you get the point.

There are several places in the analysis where a change in the initial assumptions can have a big effect on the results.

* What efficiency is used in the production of ethanol? The efficiency of producing ethanol has increased tremendously, since the 1970's and it is liely to be more effient in the future. The productin process used to be net negative (used more energy than output) in the fermentation and purification plant, without even including cost to farm the fields and delivering the material to the plant. That is no longer true. I don't know how much more efficient the process will be in the future but there will be improvement. Drilling, pumping, delivering and refining oil has been developed for 100+ years. It is unlikely that the process will become any more efficient in the future and it is very likely that it will be ess efficient as we have taken all of the "easy" oil. In the future, more processing will be needed as we use lower quality grades of crude (more contamination, oil shale etc) and it is deeper and harder to get to (sea floor).

* In the US, most ethanol is produced from corn. This is not the most efficient feed stock for the process. There is a lot of work going on to use other plants, such as switch grass. These crops will need less energy to grow and may produce more than one crop a year. There is also reserch on using waste materials as the feed stock.

* Oil refineries benefit from economies of scale. You have to make them big to be efficient. That is not true in ethanol production. The efficiency of small and medium plants is about the same as large ones. This means that rather than having a few large plants, like we have now, the plants can be placed close to the farm fields, which reduces the energy needed for transportation. Smaller, distributed plants require less security and have less risk of supply interruption.

* Finally, people say that ethanol will never meet our energy needs. We simply cannot grow enough crops. That is absolutly correct. But then, neither will the oil in ANWR or the outer continental shelf.

Ethanol is not THE answer. It is AN answer. There is not one single answer that will solve all of our problems. Ethanol offers a sustainable source of energy that puts little carbon into the atmosphere and is likly to be more efficient in the future. You can't say that about oil.

Just my (long winded) opinion,
Steve T

 

Ethanol alone is not the answer. For that matter, neither are hybrids. But combine the two and add a plug, then you've got a realistic long-term solution.

All this recent E85 promotion is nothing more than an expansion of what we've already had in Minnesota since the late 90's. There are plenty of vehicles around here capable of using E85 (or any ethanol ratio up to 85 percent), but they simply don't... despite the fact that E85 is relatively easy to find and less expensive (to balance out the MPG difference). So what the heck is that going to mean to areas where E85 isn't available? Is this the same nonsense that would happen with fuel-cell vehicles, few will actually be interested due to the fuel being hard to find?

It makes far more sense establishing an ethanol infrastructure first. Since all current gasoline vehicles are capable of using at least E10, why not place the focus on them for now? Once everyone is using that 10 percent blend, then introduce the 85 percent. From an economic point-of-view, that’s a much better industry-wide strategy.

 

As stated there is not 1 solution.
1st) a massive pullback on the amount of energy we use will be required, wether it's voluntary, pushed through taxation or rationing, or forced by a lack of energy available. (Mass transit, less heating and AC in homes, no NASCAR)
2nd) MOST transportation is within 10 minutes of everyones home. small cheap electric cars can do this wonderfully NOW. But since they don't have range, people don't SEEM to want them.
3rd) For longer trips, ethanol and biodiesel can bu used. The fuel won't be cheap, but you'll be able to rent a car and make long trips. Or wealthier people will have the 2nd car for that purpose.

 

It's not good from a conservation point of view. Roll out E85 for vehicles that can support it. Do what GM is doing, and send all E85 capable vehicle owners a special gas cap so they can easily distinguish it. We need Ford to do the same. And let people who are stuck with E10 only cars use E10 only.

 

What ever happened to the idea of refining cow manuer... i remember reading an article where they put it into a huge compression chamber. 3 gallons made 1 gallon of fuel and it didn't take that long. maybe a couple months.. i'm guessing 3? anyone recall this article? It also help a problem too, which is great. less cow waste.

 

For all practical purposes, how is using more oil in the production of ethanol considered wise? Patriotic? Conservation? Just for jobs?

We go thru enough oil everyday, now we want to use even more for less energy in the end? Does this not seem like a gov't way to do things...spend more to save less.

What is wrong with NOT using a liquid fuel that has to be harvested, processed, refined, then dispensed, instead using renewable electricity from wind, solar, etc. to charge battery-EV vehicles. Why mess with ethanol at all? Why mess with hydrogen, for that matter, when it's MUCH simpler to power vehicles from the grid, hopefully using clean, green energy?

More ethanol will lead us ever faster to the end of oil cliff...I really don't see it going any other way. There also doesn't seem to be ANY amount of conservation that will slow our oil consumption compared to supplanting oil with ethanol, by using even more oil to make it!!

(Shaking head)

 

Ethanol doesn't have to be made from corn. It can be made from grass clippings, for example. When you use grass, which grows naturally, you swing the balance from a net loss to a net gain.

 

"Ethanol doesn't have to be made from corn. It can be made from grass clippings, for example. When you use grass, which grows naturally, you swing the balance from a net loss to a net gain. "

That's great and all, but wouldn't ya still have to harvest it (use oil), refine/process it (use oil), and dispense it (use oil), not to mention the waste after all the processing (water used/other pollutants associated with industrial work)?

I'm just saying, a windfarm/solar array charging a battery to get to the grocery store seems ALOT, no, ENORMOUSLY simpler.

What am I missing here?

 

I just picture having a still in the backyard to produce ethanol.

I also plan on going solar with my house at some point. I have switched over to IF lightbulbs, have a high efficiency water heater (furnace to follow shortly).

It takes a total effort I think. Solar alone won't cut it. A windfarm... no. Nuclear + solar + ethanol + biodiesel is the only way.

 

Why no on the windfarm?

 

It seems too unpredictable. Wind isn't a constant source of power that you can plan around, and there'd be too many variables in planning output and grid consumption. If you're using it to charge up a few batteries, fine... but not to power anything substantial. I'd say that tidal power is a better alternative to look at.

 

Coming from a windy state here, kinda don't think in terms of tides! Wind here is a pretty constant commodity...always a headwind, though, beating down the MPG. Darn Murphy's Law.

Also we get a real decent share of sun per year. No rain, plenty of sun...

 

At one point I looked at a house with a deep lot, and a stream ran thru the far back part of the lot. I had visions of hooking up a small generator to harness the current, but they were overruled by visions of my basement flooding during any major storms.

NJ has great solar incentives... I believe they pay 70% of the cost of the installation. It's something I'm looking into and may go for it during the summer.

 

In Brazil sugar cane is used to produce ethanol. You get a better yeild than from corn , or so I've heard. We used to produce a fair amount of sugar beets in this country...would they work?

 

Uh, Wind is WAY cheaper than solar and the production factor is just as good or better than solar. Offshore windfarms have a production factor of around 0.5. Solar can't touch that even in AZ or CA.

Wind is actually surprisingly reliable when the farms are sited correctly. My Alma Mater offsets about 40% of its energy consumption with a single 1.65 MW turbine. It runs about 98% of the time and has a production factor of around 0.25. It will have payed for itself in about 12 years. After that the college will make money on it.

 

According to john1701a in the other active ethanol thread sugar beets out perform corn but most be processed quickly because the sugar begins to break down as soon as the plants are harvested.

 

Corn Ethanol isn't scalable or particularly sustainable. It has marginal enviromental benefits at best. It is important though. It helps us reduce our oil consumption and it's out there right now getting the attention of Joe six pack. The most important aspect of corn ethanol, I think, is going to be the awareness factor. It will be eclipsed by cellulose ethanol since corn ethanol will never be able to supply more than a small fraction of our transportation fuel requirements.

 

This is a good point on the issue of the carbon cycle issue - most people - even intelligent, environmentally-minded people that I know don't understand this issue. I guess most people haven't stopped to think of it. I've talked to a few people about it now, and they get it once they think about it for a minute or two.

Right on - we're going to need multiple strategies to solve this problem. People like us here on Prius Chat are able and willing to spend the extra money on things like plug in hybrids and be early adapters as the technology develops.

Others (as well as us) who may not be as interested or as financially able can fill up their car, truck or minivan with at least E10, and perhaps E85 as it becomes more available and more widely useable in vehicles. My dad's Dodge minivan, for example, can already take E85, and when it becomes available in his area, he plans to use it. He's not interested, though, in taking a big chance on new vehicle technology, as he only buys used cars. He leaves that to me .

As I heard someone say in one of the discussions this past week - this (the whole energy problem "solution") will be an evolution, not a revolution. It will take conservation, technology, all manner of alternative energies, and LOTS of education of the public to make it happen. I think we can all do our part by trying hard to look at the facts (if they can be found) and supporting these various efforts, while helping others to understand these issues - and if nothing else, getting people to at least think about them.

Even though I personally have been disappointed with the current administration and their environmental record, and am not convinced that the environmental initiatives brought up in the state of the union last week will actually be funded appropriately, I can very much appreciate the fact that they were brought up and it's got people thinking and talking about it! One small step!

OK - group hug!