76 comments on More thoughts on ethanol after the State of the Union...what will farmers do, and have they read the research?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
76 comments on More thoughts on ethanol after the State of the Union...what will farmers do, and have they read the research?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
TOD:Europe
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
- The 2008 IEA WEO - Production Decline Rates
- The EU Strategic Energy Review: maybe not so depressing after all
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”
—Gandhi
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.





GAIA Host Collective
Krugman is correct in his analysis but wrong in his conclusions. This is what he said in today’s NYT column (behind a pay wall)
This analysis is flawed. If we are to consider ethanol as a primary fuel, and an even partial replacement for fossil fuels, then we must allow the ethanol production infrastructure to stand on its own spindly straw legs. We must demand self-sufficiency of the fuel, and assume in our calculations corn production and distillery are run on ethanol--not gasoline.
After all, we are looking to ethanol to replace some or all of our petroleum, so we must consider the entire corn-to-ethanol process is fueled by ethanol. Otherwise why use petroleum in a pointless inefficient conversion when the resulting ethanol is less energy dense and would require larger storage than gasoline? So some of the ethanol flowing out the back end of the ethanol plant must be rerouted around to the receiving dock to make more ethanol.
Hence the need for Net Energy calculations. Krugman’s UoM researchers stopped calculating at a very very inopportune moment. This is what they did.
This is the final calculation they neglected.
So 16.7 billions gallons/4 = 4.2 billion gallons.
Thus to restate Krugman's conclusions:
pete
I think it should go like this:
I don't entirely agree with this point either:
We don't demand that other energy systems are self sufficient. No one says a windmill must be be only constructed using energy from wind. There are good reasions why the ethanol should, and eventually probably will, be rerouted around to the receiving dock. Once adequate scale exists, it should be possible to construct farm equipment that runs on hydrous ethanol. In this configuration, engines get nmore output from the same BTUs, EROEI would improve from reduced transportation of fuels, and hydrous ethanol can have water content of 5% or so, reducing energy wasted in distillation.
However, in the meantime, any requirement that ethanol facilities use only ethanol for their fuel input is impractical for reasons that have nothing to do with the theoretical utility of the exercise.
yes we do. If they are to be our primary energy source. We don't bother to make fossil fuels out of fresh vegetables so why make ethanol from coal.
If this is only an energy-conversion scheme as you suggest then why not go straight from coal to gasoline using fischer tropsch synthesis? Why bother to convert diesel to corn and then coal to ethanol? There are so many wasted steps and opportunities for inefficient energy conversion in these schemes.
Theoretically yes we could build them. But then that assumes a positive eroei, which is questioned by very competent scientists. Regardless and practically an 'adequate scale' can never exist. Not if we hope to motor and eat.
Correct. There is no ethanol available and there never will be because these ludicrus schemes will not scale up.
Actually, you are wrong on two counts. No one is claiming that ethanol can or should be our primary energy source and there are a lot of non-oil inputs into finding, producing and refining petroleum products.
The bulk of scientists do seem to claim that ethanol from corn does have a slightly positive energy balance. There is no reason why US corn-based ethanol could not scale to a size adequate to fuel significant portions of its inputs using its outputs.
None of this means that corn-based ethanol isn't a farce at best. The marginal amount of new energy producted is certainly not justified by the environmental damage done in producing it. Further, the plan to produce huge quantities of ethanol distracts from other solutions such as electric vehicles and conservation from higher prices.
I am opposed to the current US corn-based ethanol programs. I am just think that the arguemnt can be better made on these facts and that there is no need to make up new ones.