I am not an advocate of grain based ethanol production and think it can, at very best, be a minor and temporary part of the solution to oil depletion.
However, I find your case regarding the enrgy balance unconvincing. It seems to me that in the case of gasoline, you start with one unit of crude (in BTU terms) and wind up with .8 units, albiet far more useable ones.
In the case of ethanol, the inputs are much more diverse, but may or may not be more useable. You have one unit of mixed inputs mainly coal (to create the steel and electricy inputs), and natural gas (fertilizer, electricity). I don't think the gasoline and diesel inputs really count. They could be offset by using ethanol and eventually will be to some degree. However, we don't produce trucks, etc. that run on ethanol. In this case all that happens is a quantity of liquid fuel is added to both the numerator and the denominator. This reduces the ratio, but doesn't involve the waste of any energy.
So you do put in one unit of scattered energy sources and get back 1.2 (or more) units of ethanol.
I agree that crude oil on its own is not useful and coal/natural gas are. I also think the measure is somewhat arbitrary as crude to gas is only one stage in a process. Comparing the entire cycle from stuff in the ground to useful product is more meaningful.
I don't think it is useful to compare crude to gasoline with coal/natural gas/corn to ethanol. But I am not sure that the argument is actually wrong.
Comparing the entire cycle from stuff in the ground to useful product is more meaningful.
That is one of Roberts main points. He is rightly pointing out that the efficiency of gasoline is being compared to the (slightly positive) energy balance of ethanol. To start from the stuff in the ground, oil/gasoline beats ethanol by a factor of 20 (or more)times, depending on boundaries.
Ethanol does in fact transform some solar energy into usable fuel. But its replacing something that is millions of years of stored solar energy that is more energy dense and of higher quality. To reiterate, if ethanol has an EROI of 1.3:1 and the entire find/refine/distribute oil/gasoline cycle has an EROI of 8:1, then gasoline, from a societal perspective, has 7/.3 =23.33 times more energy return than corn ethanol.
I don't think the gasoline and diesel inputs really count. They could be offset by using ethanol and eventually will be to some degree.
If some of the produced ethanol is used to replace the gasoline and diesel inputs, then that ethanol is no longer available to society, which means smaller input and smaller output. While this might lead to higher net energy, it would require a larger scaling of non-energy inputs.
We have time to aim, fire and shoot only a few alternative energy bullets (along with reducing our energy footprint as a culture). Corn ethanol is a misguided shoot from the hip national waste of one of these precious bullets. I too am tired of rehashing these arguments, but smart well intentioned people are confused. 3 ethanol plants are being built every month, and a year from now there will be 8 built every month, largely coal fired. When the grain ethanol bullet is fired, it will take a decade before the bullet stops. Which is why its important to not go down this path, at least not nationally.
Actually, I agree with just about all of that. In the US ethanol is a farm subsidy first and an energy policy second. From an energy perspective, I think the US would be better served by reducing import tariffs to ethanol and seeing how the whole thing plays out.
However, I see the arguments for and against as being equally confusing. My objective isn't to promote ethanol, particularly grain-based. I have no opinion as yet on cellulosic, but have no reason to believe it is any better at this point.
However, I do think that sugar cane-based ethanol makes sense in a certain regions and only to a scale not greater than 10% of current global consumption.
I think the lack of care in referring to corn-based ethanol as if it is all ethanol is no less confusing than the pro-ethanol falsehoods. I think that failure to be clear that the accusations are only accurate in referring to a specific process (grain) is as willful and wroimg as any from the other side. The same goes for damning ethanol (or any other potential solution) just because it can not replace every bit of oil product we now use.
I see the arguments for and against as being equally confusing.
YOUR problem!!!
Why is it that we have to rehash these arguments again and again among TOD posters?
You should have made up your mind one way or another and be able to support your position by at least PLAUSIBLE arguments even if challengeable and challenged.
If you don't know what you are talking about keep reading and STFU instead of spreading your confusion.
When you have a good point to make, I wish you would refrain from weakening it with petulant Acronyms. ('STFU') If it was only your own reputation that was affected, maybe I'd leave it alone, but it really undermines making and keeping a productive discussion going here.
Even without the 'TF' in the middle of it, 'Shut Up' is beneath you or any of us.
It seems to me that the simplest (i.e. ignoring infrastrcture cost, water use, soil damage, etc) relevant metric from a peak oil perspective is the ratio of fossil fuel inputs to useable energy outputs.
In this context, inputs are just inputs; they may be, but are not necessarily, consumed. It seems inappropriate to ignore the "input" of oil that becomes gasoline, just because it isn't literally consumed (i.e. burned) in the process. You still have to put it in the front end, in order to get product out the back end.
Calculated this way, ethanol does beat gasoline. Fine, so be it. But it's a very simplified metric, and the net benefit, while positive, is small.
I think that this entire arguement is really a distraction from the bigger question of appropriate energy policy. The detractors of corn ethanol are wasting their time splitting hairs over the definition of efficiency or EROIE, at least in the context of public debate. The points that need to be made, loudly and clearly to the public, are these:
If you're concerned about peak oil, ethanol is no solution. It's positive, but it's not positive enough to offset rising demand coupled with declines in production.
If you're not concerned with peak oil, but just want to reduce oil use (e.g. for national security reasons), then ethanol is still a waste of time. The externalities are very high, and the return on investment is low compared to energy efficiency measures.
The pro-ethanol lobby has completely bollixed those who are interested in actual sane, sustainable energy policy by focusing excessive attention on the energy return question. And the ethanol detractors have, for the most part, fallen for it. We need to stop dancing to their tune, and talking from their frame. Instead, accept their arguements as being "close enough" to correct, and demonstrate why those arguements are not sufficient to support a national move towards ethanol.
Disclaimer: all the above statements are specifically about corn ethanol. Sugarcane ethanol is a different story, and cellulotic ethanol is a largely unknown story (and is therefor not a proper basis for making energy policy, IMO).
you start with one unit of crude (in BTU terms) and wind up with .8 units, albiet far more useable ones
No, Jack. The raw material is crude, in this case. The energy input is the cost of producing that one unit of raw material. That energy input has been something like .05, in the past (or lower) and, I believe, is typically more than 0.2, for conventional oil. When refining that raw material into gasoline, a bit more energy input is used, but you'd still end up with most of the raw energy that was produced at the well head. The energy inputs you cited for ethanol are really energy inputs, not the raw material (which is CO2, sunlight and soil). So your simple comparison is not a comparison at all. Kind of like what robert was talking about when he was pointing out the different metrics being used to talk up ethanol.
Isn't the difference between raw materials and energy inputs semantics?
What is the difference between the coal that goes into ethanol and the oil that goes into gasoline?
In either case you start out with one of them (coal or oil) and at the end you don't have them anymore, but you do have a liquid fuel.
I understand and agree that the energy input to crude is something along the lines of the figures you cite. I acknowledged this in my initial comment.
But isn't the same true for coal. The energy input to get the coal is much less than the BTU content. It seems to me that you count one way or other, but make it consistent for both.
Isn't the difference between raw materials and energy inputs semantics?
No, it's not semantics. We are talking about the energy available for us to use. That 1 unit of crude, that you mentioned, is not expended, it's available for use (or 0.8 is available after it's been refined), it wasn't expended. The 1 unit of energy that went into ethanol was expended and no longer available; what we got out was 0.2 units (if the figures are to be believed).
So let's say you expend 1 unit of energy. For oil production, you get, say, 5 units of raw material for producing your gasoline. If those 5 units are converted at 80%, then you end up with 4 units of energy available for every unit of energy expended. With ethanol, the 1 unit of energy expended results in some biomass that is then converted to 1.2 units of available energy. So the available energy with gasoline production is far higher than ethanol (4 units, versus 1.2 units), for the 1 unit of energy expended in producing those fuels.
You can do the same calculations with coal. I think it's only confusing for those who want a different outcome from those calculations.
I'm sorry if I am seeming oppositional. I don't want to believe one outcome or the other. I have said separately that I do not think corn-based ethanol is viable. I appreciate your patience.
However, I am still not convinced. Here is how I see it (oversimplified):
Ethanol:
Start with one BTU of coal
End up with 0 units of coal and 1.25 BTUs in the form of ethanol
Gasoline:
Start with one BTU of oil
End up with 0 BTUs of oil and .8 BTUs in the form of gasoline
I still see the distiction between converted and consumed as meaningless. Energy can not be created or destroyed, so really both are converted.
Actually, I also agree that this conversation is a side issue and not that important. I think the process of growing corn and running an ethanol refinery is more destructive and expensive than running a refinery. Again, corn ethanol is not worth the effort and the oil to gas / energy to ethanol comparison is trivia rather than analysis. However, I do not think you can say Robert is right and other are wrong.
If the process produced more energy (like sugar cane) or used less resources (water, land, etc), ethanol can make sense.
I agree with how you are looking at this, but disagree that the energy content of the raw material is irrelevant. We are on this website because we think oil is running out. If you could substitute corn in the first equation in your comment with something that is abundant and harmless, it would save the world. Unfortunately, corn doesn't meet that requirement.
I agree that corn is probably the worst possible feestock for ethanol. But I was trying to illustrate the 1.2 / 1.0 ethanol EROI (= 1.2) versus the 1.0 / 0.2 gasoline EROI (= 5.0). This I believe is the crux of the debate.
1 bushel of corn contains X Kcal of raw energy. Produced from an input of sunlight, water, fertilizers, natural gas (or coal,) inputs from liquid fuels that go into cultivation and harvesting equipment. Of that raw energy (corn energy + other input energy) only E% gets converted to ethanol.
This E% is what you should be comparing to the 80% figure that is quoted for gasoline.
This only makes sense if you subtract the solar energy in the ethanol process from the ethanol equation. In this case, the ethanol process would be extremely energy negative.
The solar energy in ethanol and the original energy content of the crude oil are 'found' energy sources and aren't properly included in the equation.
The solar energy is not practically limited - the oil is, and the fertilizer necessary to utilize that solar energy is.
If you want to speak of closed systems and account for all externalities, then every single chemical process has a negative ROIE.
Vinod is arguing that taking all our fossil fuels, putting it 1 BTU at a time into the "black box farm" equipment + fertilizer, and getting 1.3 BTU of ethanol out, is better than taking 1 BTU of oil, putting it into a "black box refinery", and getting 0.8 BTU of gasoline out. I think I'd agree with him on that narrow point, IF it's completely sustainable, esp because it's more useful fuel than, for example, coal.
The reality is that
A) Capacity is almost as important as efficiency. If your average farmer can make an energy profit, but isn't making enough total to drive to walmart every weekend and buy groceries, you have a problem. Likewise, yields are low enough that we are highly farmland limited, meaning that we can't really offset a significant portion of the country on corn ethanol, no matter if someone works out the microeconomics (which I think Vinod is working on, entirely dependant on government subsidies) or the energy economics.
B) 1.3 ROI is horribly difficult to work with. Right now we have an oil infrastructure that supplies hundreds of thousands of people with margins on which to live, and those margins are taken out of a 10-20x energy balance. Do you think our current version of society can survive if it requires 30x as many people to be working the mines or the fields?
"Do you think our current version of society can survive if it requires 30x as many people to be working the mines or the fields?"
No. But two points:
We will have to/be able to cut out a lot of wasteful or luxury energy use. I do think we can live as well or better using less energy than we do now.
Ethanol could account for a very small portion of overall energy use. If oil gave use a 1:10 EROEI, but we had 10% less upply which was met by ethanol at 1:1.2, we would have an overall EROEI of 1:9.2.
Actually we were just using the one BTU of coal to simplify the analysis. In reality, the fuel stock can be broader. You are right in the cast of grain-based ethanol that it is only 20-30% renewable.
Again, with sugar cane-based ethanol, the non-renewable inputs are far smaller (10-15%) and could come from hydropower (which haas its own problems - but is "renewable"). Given this ratio the ethanol is far closer to renewable and the impact on the climate is far less.
Ethanol:
Start with one BTU of coal
End up with 0 units of coal and 1.25 BTUs in the form of ethanol
I think I would be more comfortable with:
Start with one BTU of ethanol
End up with 0 units of ethanol and 1.25 BTUs in the form of ethanol
It's the same as RR's challenge to run an ethanol plant on its own energy stream. (like we routinely do in petroleum refineries). I mean this literally: run the farm equipment on ethanol, the transport trucks (to/from) the distillery on ethanol and the distillery on ethanol. Test a closed loop system.... measure everything... the irrigation water volume, the fertilizers, all ethanol inputs to equipment and distillery operations.
No sarcasm is intended here... this seems like a terrific project for the University of Iowa. Let's prove out the facts on the ground.
It really is as simple as that. It needs to be done.
Investing in ethanol is investing in politics (and subsidies). Right now it is rewarding venture capitalists, farmers, and politicians at the expense of precious fertile land and water resources in an attempt for continuing our "nonnegotiable" lifestyle. A big issue in addition to debating EROI with these guys is how the time, resources, and government money could be better spent. One of the big absurdities of ethanol is its temporary nature. Each year the corn needs to be grown and transported and processed under a different set of circumstances (drought conditions, storms, etc.) Let's compare that to spending our efforts on expanding rail in this country, and wind and solar into our electrical grid. Those efforts would be much more long-lasting as well as meeting future needs in our "nonnegotiable" powerdown. Ethanol is leading us farther down the road to industrialized farming and an inability to feed ourselves if and when we face oil shocks. These ethanol supporters assignment should be to read "Omnivore's Dilemna". It is my own belief that these ethanol plants won't be operating in the near future because of increasing cost of fossil fuel inputs, constrained government budgets limiting subsidies, GW causing increased crop failures and increasing public acceptance of the fallicies of ethanol. As soon as politicians realize that more votes can be gained by opposing ethanol, their story will change. Robert, keep up the good work and thanks for all that you do.
But you're forgetting how valuable moonshine is -- maybe our cars won't run on ethanol, but when we go back to muscle power, farm workers will "run" on liquor from the ethanol plants. Probably be paid with it too, Captain Cook partly paid his men's' wages with booze.
The production of green fuels benefits each and every one of us, not just venture capitalists, farmers and politicians.
Moreover, as the US ethanol industry is in its infancy, I suggest that it will be around for some time to come as new technologies, best practices and 2nd generation production paths begin to take hold -elements all- of a rapidly expanding and exciting sector whose actors are well aware of the hurdles in front of them.
It's naive to assume that ingenuity does not have a place in the grain->ethanol world especially as ethanol producers such as E3 and others are right now proving otherwise by implementing cogen energy streams wherever possible.
When you disconnect a refinery from the grid and run it on crude/new product alone, then the challenge could be legitimate. Until then, it is hoop jumping.
Or build a windmill using just wind. Try that!
Actually in the case of ethanol it can be done, it is just impractical and expensive to create a custom, parallel infrastructure.
I could come close with the industrial structure of Iceland.
Electric arc smelting today creates ferro-silicon alloys and could be used for simpler alloys. Massive sources of aluminum (Al blades instead of fiberglass). Towers from Al.
Recycled copper from autos melted down by electric arc.
Ammonia plant closed down recently, could be used for many organic chemicals with modest changes.
Iceland has superb wind resources, but better hydro & geothermal resources.
OK, good idea. Let's give them a $10 million ethanol plant and lets give the wind farm $10 million worth of wind generators. Then we'll start keeping track of EROEI's.
why do you feel that the closed loop operation "has to be done" for ethanol, but not for other renewable energy energy sources?
I just proposed that we compare wind to ethanol.
Maybe you should contribute the $100 million
Actually, if an existing Iowa ethanol plant could be used, as well as existing wind generators already near Ames, and EROEI data were collected for 1 year's time by Iowa State, it could and probably would end up saving taxpayers millions in ended ethanol subsidies, both on a federal and a state level.
I didn't say I didn't want to do it. I just say treat 'em all equally.
If Iowa or any other state would retrofit farm equipment and tankers to run on pure ethanol and produced all of the fertilizer from ethanol and waste, it would improve the EROEI greatly by subtracting from the numerator and denominator. Building the hardware for a windmill or distillery is going to be tough.
I think what you would find is that ethanol does have a positive EROEI, but that wind is much better. If the analysis also included other externalities, such as water use and environmental/climate impact, the gap would be greater. If you were to extend the comparison to end use at the cars tires, even better.
I am pro-wind and unenthusiastic at best about corn-based ethanol. I just want to be fair.
So if you are going to do it, let me know. I'll even contribute.
A combine can cost a farmer $250,000 and not even include the header(the big part in front).
Most all equipment runs on diesel. Long life is one reason. They are built tough. Storage of fuel is not a big problem. It also used to be cheaper than gas.
Asking them to shuck all their diesel equipment and invest in new E85 or ethanol running engines is just not going to happen IMO. At least not in any short time frame.
Refit? I doubt that diesel engines would be 'convertible'. The injection pumps and the compression ratios would likely not be prone to such modifications. Gas in a diesel engine spells destruction.
Farmers run on a very tight budget. Sometimes a crop year is just break even and I am not talking 'corporate farms' nor am I talking 'family farms'.
I am talking the 'operator' who owns manybe 200 - 500 acres and rents or sharecrops another 1500-2000. This is enough acreage (in the midwest) to give him a reasonable ability to make some large expenditures and expect a reasonable return.
They tend to always be in debt also. Without the lender signing off on such purchases that also will not happen.
The deep south,plains and other areas may differ.
Also I do not see them jumping thru hoops to trash all their seeders and combines/headers just to go to 'switch grass' or some other exotic. They have been into corn,wheat and soybeans for a long enough period that they can be sucessful with a background of knowledge. Throw milo in as well.
Most here who speak of 'we'll grow sugar cane or whatever' just don't seem to grasp the real concepts of agriculture/farming. Like they can and will just switchover with no problems.
Proposing ethanol and assuming that farmers would just switch over is not a viable assumption IMO. I think they would just stick with what they have or sell out.
I see very few of the younger generation out here in the fields. Most who try it don't care for it. The ones that are hired to do the work are your basic 'day labor' types. They do not understand much beyond what they are told to do. Putting them on a $80,000 tractor is senseless in my opinion but thats exactly what happens.Myself I wouldn't trust most on a go-cart.
Late model tractors and other equipment is quite hi-tech these days. Lots of sensor based equipment. Lots of controls and actuators that are driven by embedded modules.
Try explaining then how to pull up the DTC's and understand what they say is nigh impossible. They use these men/boys because they can't afford to pay much in wages and thats all thats available.
could come from hydropower (which haas its own problems - but is "renewable")
I think it's important to point out that all the fuels we use are renewable. There are two important issues though. One is the quantity of the resource and the second is the rate at which we use that resource. If the resource quantity is way beyond our ability to use it up, in the likely span of the human species, then it is effectively infinite and, provided we don't use up other resources beyond their renewal rate, when harnessing the infinite resource, then we are sustainable (in terms that are meaningful to humans). If we use any resource (either the energy source itself or resources consumed to harness that energy source) beyond its renewal rate then that is not sustainable. That goes for hydro, wind, biomass, etc., just as much as oil (though oils renewal period can be measured in millions of years).
In fact, hydro is limited and its use already has knock on effects that were not envisaged. All energy sources are limited, because it takes limited resources to harness them.
The key is to get to a state where we are using resources sustainably (or effectively sustainably). Let's not distinguish between renewable and so-called non-renewable resources, since renewable can become non-renewable if consumed too rapidly.
Ethanol:
Start with one BTU of coal
End up with 0 units of coal and 1.25 BTUs in the form of ethanol
Gasoline:
Start with one BTU of oil
End up with 0 BTUs of oil and .8 BTUs in the form of gasoline
In chemical engineering terms, your numbers are correct, but meaningless. Those numbers are apples and oranges; they represent two different energy balances. The ethanol numbers are an approximation of the total overall energy balance for ethanol production, including farming, transportation, etc. The gasoline numbers are a refinery energy balance. Expand the gasoline energy balance to be on the same basis as the ethanol one and there is no 1 BTU of oil input; there is .2 BTU of energy input to get the oil. The oil, unlike the coal, no longer crosses the boundary of the energy balance.
Setting correct boundaries for mass and energy balances is ChemE 101. I find I agree with RR; to get something so elementary wrong is deliberate obfuscation.
All of this discussion of conversion efficiency brings up what I think is the primary source of confusion. Whats being sold to the public is not that ethanol is a better way to convert fossil fuels to liquids. Rather, its that crops can be the energy source.
I know oil has a positive EROI because there is gas at the gas station. I'm with Will upthread. Lets see it done completely independent of any other energy source.
However, I find your case regarding the enrgy balance unconvincing. It seems to me that in the case of gasoline, you start with one unit of crude (in BTU terms) and wind up with .8 units, albiet far more useable ones.
In the case of ethanol, the inputs are much more diverse, but may or may not be more useable. You have one unit of mixed inputs mainly coal (to create the steel and electricy inputs), and natural gas (fertilizer, electricity). I don't think the gasoline and diesel inputs really count. They could be offset by using ethanol and eventually will be to some degree. However, we don't produce trucks, etc. that run on ethanol. In this case all that happens is a quantity of liquid fuel is added to both the numerator and the denominator. This reduces the ratio, but doesn't involve the waste of any energy.
So you do put in one unit of scattered energy sources and get back 1.2 (or more) units of ethanol.
I agree that crude oil on its own is not useful and coal/natural gas are. I also think the measure is somewhat arbitrary as crude to gas is only one stage in a process. Comparing the entire cycle from stuff in the ground to useful product is more meaningful.
I don't think it is useful to compare crude to gasoline with coal/natural gas/corn to ethanol. But I am not sure that the argument is actually wrong.
That is one of Roberts main points. He is rightly pointing out that the efficiency of gasoline is being compared to the (slightly positive) energy balance of ethanol. To start from the stuff in the ground, oil/gasoline beats ethanol by a factor of 20 (or more)times, depending on boundaries.
Ethanol does in fact transform some solar energy into usable fuel. But its replacing something that is millions of years of stored solar energy that is more energy dense and of higher quality. To reiterate, if ethanol has an EROI of 1.3:1 and the entire find/refine/distribute oil/gasoline cycle has an EROI of 8:1, then gasoline, from a societal perspective, has 7/.3 =23.33 times more energy return than corn ethanol.
If some of the produced ethanol is used to replace the gasoline and diesel inputs, then that ethanol is no longer available to society, which means smaller input and smaller output. While this might lead to higher net energy, it would require a larger scaling of non-energy inputs.
We have time to aim, fire and shoot only a few alternative energy bullets (along with reducing our energy footprint as a culture). Corn ethanol is a misguided shoot from the hip national waste of one of these precious bullets. I too am tired of rehashing these arguments, but smart well intentioned people are confused. 3 ethanol plants are being built every month, and a year from now there will be 8 built every month, largely coal fired. When the grain ethanol bullet is fired, it will take a decade before the bullet stops. Which is why its important to not go down this path, at least not nationally.
However, I see the arguments for and against as being equally confusing. My objective isn't to promote ethanol, particularly grain-based. I have no opinion as yet on cellulosic, but have no reason to believe it is any better at this point.
However, I do think that sugar cane-based ethanol makes sense in a certain regions and only to a scale not greater than 10% of current global consumption.
I think the lack of care in referring to corn-based ethanol as if it is all ethanol is no less confusing than the pro-ethanol falsehoods. I think that failure to be clear that the accusations are only accurate in referring to a specific process (grain) is as willful and wroimg as any from the other side. The same goes for damning ethanol (or any other potential solution) just because it can not replace every bit of oil product we now use.
YOUR problem!!!
Why is it that we have to rehash these arguments again and again among TOD posters?
You should have made up your mind one way or another and be able to support your position by at least PLAUSIBLE arguments even if challengeable and challenged.
If you don't know what you are talking about keep reading and STFU instead of spreading your confusion.
Even without the 'TF' in the middle of it, 'Shut Up' is beneath you or any of us.
Bob Fiske
40 more being built.
7 existing facilites are being expanded.
Not only has the path been paved but they're putting up lights.
Thus:
gasoline: 1 BTU (petroleum) input -> 0.8 BTU output
ethanol: 1 BTU (mix hydrocarbon) input -> 1.3 BTU output
In this context, inputs are just inputs; they may be, but are not necessarily, consumed. It seems inappropriate to ignore the "input" of oil that becomes gasoline, just because it isn't literally consumed (i.e. burned) in the process. You still have to put it in the front end, in order to get product out the back end.
Calculated this way, ethanol does beat gasoline. Fine, so be it. But it's a very simplified metric, and the net benefit, while positive, is small.
I think that this entire arguement is really a distraction from the bigger question of appropriate energy policy. The detractors of corn ethanol are wasting their time splitting hairs over the definition of efficiency or EROIE, at least in the context of public debate. The points that need to be made, loudly and clearly to the public, are these:
- If you're concerned about peak oil, ethanol is no solution. It's positive, but it's not positive enough to offset rising demand coupled with declines in production.
- If you're not concerned with peak oil, but just want to reduce oil use (e.g. for national security reasons), then ethanol is still a waste of time. The externalities are very high, and the return on investment is low compared to energy efficiency measures.
The pro-ethanol lobby has completely bollixed those who are interested in actual sane, sustainable energy policy by focusing excessive attention on the energy return question. And the ethanol detractors have, for the most part, fallen for it. We need to stop dancing to their tune, and talking from their frame. Instead, accept their arguements as being "close enough" to correct, and demonstrate why those arguements are not sufficient to support a national move towards ethanol.Disclaimer: all the above statements are specifically about corn ethanol. Sugarcane ethanol is a different story, and cellulotic ethanol is a largely unknown story (and is therefor not a proper basis for making energy policy, IMO).
Tony
What is the difference between the coal that goes into ethanol and the oil that goes into gasoline?
In either case you start out with one of them (coal or oil) and at the end you don't have them anymore, but you do have a liquid fuel.
I understand and agree that the energy input to crude is something along the lines of the figures you cite. I acknowledged this in my initial comment.
But isn't the same true for coal. The energy input to get the coal is much less than the BTU content. It seems to me that you count one way or other, but make it consistent for both.
NO!
It it very precisely stated by sofistek and you just reject it with NO backing argument, hand-waving isn't an argument.
So let's say you expend 1 unit of energy. For oil production, you get, say, 5 units of raw material for producing your gasoline. If those 5 units are converted at 80%, then you end up with 4 units of energy available for every unit of energy expended. With ethanol, the 1 unit of energy expended results in some biomass that is then converted to 1.2 units of available energy. So the available energy with gasoline production is far higher than ethanol (4 units, versus 1.2 units), for the 1 unit of energy expended in producing those fuels.
You can do the same calculations with coal. I think it's only confusing for those who want a different outcome from those calculations.
Tony
I'm sorry if I am seeming oppositional. I don't want to believe one outcome or the other. I have said separately that I do not think corn-based ethanol is viable. I appreciate your patience.
However, I am still not convinced. Here is how I see it (oversimplified):
Ethanol:
Start with one BTU of coal
End up with 0 units of coal and 1.25 BTUs in the form of ethanol
Gasoline:
Start with one BTU of oil
End up with 0 BTUs of oil and .8 BTUs in the form of gasoline
I still see the distiction between converted and consumed as meaningless. Energy can not be created or destroyed, so really both are converted.
Actually, I also agree that this conversation is a side issue and not that important. I think the process of growing corn and running an ethanol refinery is more destructive and expensive than running a refinery. Again, corn ethanol is not worth the effort and the oil to gas / energy to ethanol comparison is trivia rather than analysis. However, I do not think you can say Robert is right and other are wrong.
If the process produced more energy (like sugar cane) or used less resources (water, land, etc), ethanol can make sense.
- Corn: You consume 1.0 BTU of coal to convert one unit of raw material (corn) into 1.2 BTU of ethanol.
- Crude: You consume 0.2 BTU of coal to convert one unit of raw material (crude) into 1.0 BTU of gasoline.
IMHO, the energy content of the raw material is irrelevant.Jack
Think of the problem as follows.
1 bushel of corn contains X Kcal of raw energy. Produced from an input of sunlight, water, fertilizers, natural gas (or coal,) inputs from liquid fuels that go into cultivation and harvesting equipment. Of that raw energy (corn energy + other input energy) only E% gets converted to ethanol.
This E% is what you should be comparing to the 80% figure that is quoted for gasoline.
The solar energy in ethanol and the original energy content of the crude oil are 'found' energy sources and aren't properly included in the equation.
If you want to speak of closed systems and account for all externalities, then every single chemical process has a negative ROIE.
Vinod is arguing that taking all our fossil fuels, putting it 1 BTU at a time into the "black box farm" equipment + fertilizer, and getting 1.3 BTU of ethanol out, is better than taking 1 BTU of oil, putting it into a "black box refinery", and getting 0.8 BTU of gasoline out. I think I'd agree with him on that narrow point, IF it's completely sustainable, esp because it's more useful fuel than, for example, coal.
The reality is that
A) Capacity is almost as important as efficiency. If your average farmer can make an energy profit, but isn't making enough total to drive to walmart every weekend and buy groceries, you have a problem. Likewise, yields are low enough that we are highly farmland limited, meaning that we can't really offset a significant portion of the country on corn ethanol, no matter if someone works out the microeconomics (which I think Vinod is working on, entirely dependant on government subsidies) or the energy economics.
B) 1.3 ROI is horribly difficult to work with. Right now we have an oil infrastructure that supplies hundreds of thousands of people with margins on which to live, and those margins are taken out of a 10-20x energy balance. Do you think our current version of society can survive if it requires 30x as many people to be working the mines or the fields?
No. But two points:
The thing that strikes me here is starting with one BTU of coal. As ever, we're still depleting a fossil resource. Where is the renewability factor?
Again, with sugar cane-based ethanol, the non-renewable inputs are far smaller (10-15%) and could come from hydropower (which haas its own problems - but is "renewable"). Given this ratio the ethanol is far closer to renewable and the impact on the climate is far less.
I think I would be more comfortable with:
Start with one BTU of ethanol
End up with 0 units of ethanol and 1.25 BTUs in the form of ethanol
It's the same as RR's challenge to run an ethanol plant on its own energy stream. (like we routinely do in petroleum refineries). I mean this literally: run the farm equipment on ethanol, the transport trucks (to/from) the distillery on ethanol and the distillery on ethanol. Test a closed loop system.... measure everything... the irrigation water volume, the fertilizers, all ethanol inputs to equipment and distillery operations.
No sarcasm is intended here... this seems like a terrific project for the University of Iowa. Let's prove out the facts on the ground.
Investing in ethanol is investing in politics (and subsidies). Right now it is rewarding venture capitalists, farmers, and politicians at the expense of precious fertile land and water resources in an attempt for continuing our "nonnegotiable" lifestyle. A big issue in addition to debating EROI with these guys is how the time, resources, and government money could be better spent. One of the big absurdities of ethanol is its temporary nature. Each year the corn needs to be grown and transported and processed under a different set of circumstances (drought conditions, storms, etc.) Let's compare that to spending our efforts on expanding rail in this country, and wind and solar into our electrical grid. Those efforts would be much more long-lasting as well as meeting future needs in our "nonnegotiable" powerdown. Ethanol is leading us farther down the road to industrialized farming and an inability to feed ourselves if and when we face oil shocks. These ethanol supporters assignment should be to read "Omnivore's Dilemna". It is my own belief that these ethanol plants won't be operating in the near future because of increasing cost of fossil fuel inputs, constrained government budgets limiting subsidies, GW causing increased crop failures and increasing public acceptance of the fallicies of ethanol. As soon as politicians realize that more votes can be gained by opposing ethanol, their story will change. Robert, keep up the good work and thanks for all that you do.
The production of green fuels benefits each and every one of us, not just venture capitalists, farmers and politicians.
Moreover, as the US ethanol industry is in its infancy, I suggest that it will be around for some time to come as new technologies, best practices and 2nd generation production paths begin to take hold -elements all- of a rapidly expanding and exciting sector whose actors are well aware of the hurdles in front of them.
It's naive to assume that ingenuity does not have a place in the grain->ethanol world especially as ethanol producers such as E3 and others are right now proving otherwise by implementing cogen energy streams wherever possible.
Or build a windmill using just wind. Try that!
Actually in the case of ethanol it can be done, it is just impractical and expensive to create a custom, parallel infrastructure.
I could come close with the industrial structure of Iceland.
Electric arc smelting today creates ferro-silicon alloys and could be used for simpler alloys. Massive sources of aluminum (Al blades instead of fiberglass). Towers from Al.
Recycled copper from autos melted down by electric arc.
Ammonia plant closed down recently, could be used for many organic chemicals with modest changes.
Iceland has superb wind resources, but better hydro & geothermal resources.
But seriously, why do you feel that the closed loop operation "has to be done" for ethanol, but not for other renewable energy energy sources?
I just proposed that we compare wind to ethanol.
Maybe you should contribute the $100 million
Actually, if an existing Iowa ethanol plant could be used, as well as existing wind generators already near Ames, and EROEI data were collected for 1 year's time by Iowa State, it could and probably would end up saving taxpayers millions in ended ethanol subsidies, both on a federal and a state level.
Why do you not want to see this done??
If Iowa or any other state would retrofit farm equipment and tankers to run on pure ethanol and produced all of the fertilizer from ethanol and waste, it would improve the EROEI greatly by subtracting from the numerator and denominator. Building the hardware for a windmill or distillery is going to be tough.
I think what you would find is that ethanol does have a positive EROEI, but that wind is much better. If the analysis also included other externalities, such as water use and environmental/climate impact, the gap would be greater. If you were to extend the comparison to end use at the cars tires, even better.
I am pro-wind and unenthusiastic at best about corn-based ethanol. I just want to be fair.
So if you are going to do it, let me know. I'll even contribute.
A combine can cost a farmer $250,000 and not even include the header(the big part in front).
Most all equipment runs on diesel. Long life is one reason. They are built tough. Storage of fuel is not a big problem. It also used to be cheaper than gas.
Asking them to shuck all their diesel equipment and invest in new E85 or ethanol running engines is just not going to happen IMO. At least not in any short time frame.
Refit? I doubt that diesel engines would be 'convertible'. The injection pumps and the compression ratios would likely not be prone to such modifications. Gas in a diesel engine spells destruction.
Farmers run on a very tight budget. Sometimes a crop year is just break even and I am not talking 'corporate farms' nor am I talking 'family farms'.
I am talking the 'operator' who owns manybe 200 - 500 acres and rents or sharecrops another 1500-2000. This is enough acreage (in the midwest) to give him a reasonable ability to make some large expenditures and expect a reasonable return.
They tend to always be in debt also. Without the lender signing off on such purchases that also will not happen.
The deep south,plains and other areas may differ.
Also I do not see them jumping thru hoops to trash all their seeders and combines/headers just to go to 'switch grass' or some other exotic. They have been into corn,wheat and soybeans for a long enough period that they can be sucessful with a background of knowledge. Throw milo in as well.
Most here who speak of 'we'll grow sugar cane or whatever' just don't seem to grasp the real concepts of agriculture/farming. Like they can and will just switchover with no problems.
Proposing ethanol and assuming that farmers would just switch over is not a viable assumption IMO. I think they would just stick with what they have or sell out.
I see very few of the younger generation out here in the fields. Most who try it don't care for it. The ones that are hired to do the work are your basic 'day labor' types. They do not understand much beyond what they are told to do. Putting them on a $80,000 tractor is senseless in my opinion but thats exactly what happens.Myself I wouldn't trust most on a go-cart.
Late model tractors and other equipment is quite hi-tech these days. Lots of sensor based equipment. Lots of controls and actuators that are driven by embedded modules.
Try explaining then how to pull up the DTC's and understand what they say is nigh impossible. They use these men/boys because they can't afford to pay much in wages and thats all thats available.
In fact, hydro is limited and its use already has knock on effects that were not envisaged. All energy sources are limited, because it takes limited resources to harness them.
The key is to get to a state where we are using resources sustainably (or effectively sustainably). Let's not distinguish between renewable and so-called non-renewable resources, since renewable can become non-renewable if consumed too rapidly.
Tony
Start with one BTU of coal
End up with 0 units of coal and 1.25 BTUs in the form of ethanol
Gasoline:
Start with one BTU of oil
End up with 0 BTUs of oil and .8 BTUs in the form of gasoline
In chemical engineering terms, your numbers are correct, but meaningless. Those numbers are apples and oranges; they represent two different energy balances. The ethanol numbers are an approximation of the total overall energy balance for ethanol production, including farming, transportation, etc. The gasoline numbers are a refinery energy balance. Expand the gasoline energy balance to be on the same basis as the ethanol one and there is no 1 BTU of oil input; there is .2 BTU of energy input to get the oil. The oil, unlike the coal, no longer crosses the boundary of the energy balance.
Setting correct boundaries for mass and energy balances is ChemE 101. I find I agree with RR; to get something so elementary wrong is deliberate obfuscation.
I know oil has a positive EROI because there is gas at the gas station. I'm with Will upthread. Lets see it done completely independent of any other energy source.