Mythbusters: Ethanol and Foreign Oil Displacement

As a result of the recent Rolling Stone article on ethanol, I have been getting a lot of e-mails in which the same topics come up again and again. Therefore, I decided to write a comprehensive ethanol FAQ, which will eventually be placed in full here at TOD. Right now, the FAQ is a work in progress on my blog (feel free to provide comments/criticisms), but I will occasionally post various topics here as I work my way through them. Today's topic is the claim:

Ethanol Reduces Dependence on Foreign Oil

It is interesting that this claim is so popular, given that it is so easily shown to be false. From the Renewable Fuels Association's (RFA) "Energy Facts":

FACT: In 2006, the production and use of ethanol in the U.S. reduced oil imports by 170 million barrels, saving $11 billion from being sent to foreign and often hostile countries.

Interestingly, the RFA's page on industry statistics shows that ethanol production in 2006 was 4.86 billion gallons. This is 116 million barrels. Somehow using 116 million barrels of ethanol, with a per barrel BTU value of just over half that of a barrel of oil, displaced 170 million barrels of oil. To be precise, 116 million barrels of ethanol contain the BTU equivalent of 64 million barrels of oil.

The RFA's source on that was the consulting firm LECG, where director John M. Urbanchuk has also been quoted:

The production of nearly five billion gallons of ethanol means that the U.S. needed to import 206 million fewer barrels of oil in 2006, valued at $11.2 billion. This is money that stayed in the American economy.


Source: Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States in 2006 (PDF download)

But it gets even better. From DOE Assistant Secretary Alexander Karsner's keynote address to the RFA's National Ethanol Conference in Tucson, Arizona:

Last year, we contributed something on the order of a displacing 500 million barrels of oil, oil that we didn't have to import from regimes that are hostile to our interest or might leverage energy economics over our future.

Here's the same claim by Paul Dickerson, Chief Operating Officer at the DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy:

Over 6 billion gallons of ethanol were produced in the United States last year, and we have an additional 5 billion gallons of refining capacity under construction.

That effort means 500 million fewer barrels of oil that we have to import from the Middle East.

That's from the U.S. Department of Energy, folks. That is the department of the U.S. government that is charged with formulating and carrying out U.S. energy policy. And they are clearly delusional about the level of petroleum displacement from ethanol. If I truly believed those numbers, I would be all over the ethanol bandwagon as well. Either they are purposely misleading people, or they actually believe what they are saying. Both options are disturbing, considering the role the DOE plays in influencing energy policies.

How on earth are people coming up with these numbers? Can 64 million barrels of oil equivalent displace 170 million, 206 million, or even 500 million barrels of oil? And recognize that we haven't even touched upon the fact that the 64 million barrels is the gross output, and not the net. To get a true displacement number (for just petroleum), we have to subtract out all of the petroleum inputs that went into making those barrels of ethanol. At least that's what we would do if our goals were scientific, with the intention of getting to the truth of the matter, and not politically motivated.

Since ethanol is a gasoline replacement, this oil displacement should be most pronounced if we look at the gasoline demand curve. As ethanol has ramped up exponentially since 2000, how much gasoline has been displaced? It's not apparent that there was any displacement. As shown in the link, as ethanol has ramped up since 2000, not only has gasoline demand increased by 10 billion barrels per year, but there isn't even any obvious effect from ethanol on the gasoline growth curve. As ethanol has ramped up, we have become more dependent upon petroleum. That is not my opinion. That's what the numbers say, in black and white.

U.S. dependence on foreign oil is a demand-side problem. It is not going to be fixed by producing more ethanol - false claims about the amount of displacement notwithstanding. And it is not going to be fixed unless we confront the reality of the situation instead of the political spin.

And you "aint seen nothing yet." Sen. Clinton is a huge supporter of Ethanol so you can bet your bottom dollar that if elected President we'll see more and more of our tax dollars flushed down the toilet.

I'm curious if the article included the harmful affects Ethanol production has on the enviroment and food prices?

Aw, almost all the candidates tout ethanol as green and a way to energy "independence". It sounds good and that's all that matters to a politician looking for votes. A good policy maker will really look into the issue when they actually have to make a decision (although politics still play a role of course). This is why Mr Rapier's FAQ is so important - the facts on ethanol are pretty compelling against, but against that you have ignorance and a desperate wish to secure fuel to maintain the lifestyle of driving around every where, all the time, for everything.

McCain had been the most anti-ethanol guy, but he changed his tune for Iowa

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/11/13/839313...

Mike "Heckuva Job" Brown would stand a better chance of winning an election in New Orleans than an anti-ethanol candidate would of winning Iowa's caucus.

In a flip-flop so absurd it'll be a wonder if it doesn't get lampooned by late-night comedians - not to mention opponents' negative ads - McCain is now proclaiming himself a "strong" ethanol supporter.

"I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects," he said in an August speech in Grinnell, Iowa, as reported by the Associated Press.

It sounds good and that's all that matters to a politician looking for votes.

Exactly.

Our scientists at the Lemming Institute for Grocking Human Thought (The LIGHT) have discovered that the human species responds best to "sound" logic.

They hold little hope for rational thought taking over.

Our scientists at the Lemming Institute for Grocking Human Thought (The LIGHT) have discovered that the human species responds best to "sound" logic.

[humorous-pedantry] I believe the term is 'Grokking' [/humorous-pedantry]

Given that we are strange eggs in the cusp, and often unstuck in time, it is hard to know what spelling to apply to this cognitive activity. Suffice it to say that cognitive appreciation of what goes on in the human mind is illusive if not downright impossible.

Strange eggs in the cusp, often unstuck in time. My favorite post of the day, thanks.

OK. Not fair to have book worm jokes embedded on a public bog. We're speaking in the language of the Stranger in a Strange Land. A classic if you have not read and grokked it.

D'oh! Read it when it was first written, didn't recognize it here and admired the alien quality of thought. (And I would have put down "unstuck in time" to Billy Pilgrim and the Tralfamadorians). (Which, as Dave Barry might note, would be a great name for a rock band).

Yes, you are right. The "unstuck in time" phrase should have been attributed to Slaughterhouse Five. Sorry.

Grokking Kool Aid.

Two years of Oil Drum later, I get the King Corn episode of The West Wing so much better now.
--
Jaymax (cornucomer-doomopian)

so you can bet your bottom dollar that if elected President [Hillary] we'll see more and more of our tax dollars flushed down the toilet

I am not sure that is true. I have seen Bill Clinton talk about imminent peak oil. One thing everyone says about Hillary Clinton is that she does her homework and knows the facts. Ethanol is a farm subsidy that also seems to many to have environmental and national security values. Winning farm state support is essential to win a national election.

Politicians like Clinton know that fossil fuels are limited and that they are going to have to do something about it. The media, oil companies and business in general do not want to have the population scared by talk of severe shortages and the economic downturn they imply. This denial cannot be taken on in a national politic campaign until there is wider acceptance of it in society. People vote for the politicians who give them the most optimistic view of the future. Some people, like Matt Simmons, need to get way out in front and change people's minds but a political candidate cannot do it unless they have no chance of winning and are not really trying to win (although sometimes they throw a desperation long bomb). Perhaps it would be better if that were not the case but we need to deal with the world as it is.

And yet it does demonstrate a certain lack of imagination, that no politician can think of a way to sell to the public the need to move away from fossil fuels. If Bush can get up there and admit "America is addicted to oil", and even the most optimistic estimates show that America will be gradually become utterly reliant on the Middle East for its oil supplies over the next decade or so, then surely there has to be way to tap into America's touted patriotic sense of independence and self-reliance.

In war times, governments have been able to rally the public on the need to conserve and become more self-reliant (e.g. victory gardens). We already have government-sponsored ads here in Australia encouraging us and suggesting ways to use less water and less electricity or natural gas. "Use less petrol" is the next logical step. It's not an impossible message to sell. Sounds like the U.S. candidates are simply throwing it in the "too hard" basket. Or, more cynically, they have too much vested interest in the fossil-fuel industries, and are sufficiently selfish and short-sighted to put that ahead of the country's (and planet's) long term needs.
But again, if Roscoe Bartlett can make a stand, so can others.

Well they do all talk about energy independance but that is not a realistic possibility in the short term given the US has only 2% of world oil reserves. What they cannot say is that the world may well have passed peak oil, peak gas will come in only a few years at most and that we will pass peak coal in less than twenty years. That we will face an overwhelming crisis comparable to the World Wars. People would view that as too pessimistic because they do not have the foundation to believe it yet. But I think the most thoughtful candidates, among whom I include Clinton, know what we really face.

Roscoe Bartlett is not running for president with a reasonable chance of winning which is why he has the freedom to say what he does. When people start to listen to him then main stream politicians will also be able to say what he does.

A "crisis comparable to the World Wars" is most almost a given, if Americans start doing nothing to reduce their oil and gas usage.

Of course that's not the way you sell it. Get a crack team of propagandists, marketeers and advertisers in a room together, and I bet they could come up with a campaign to convince Americans that driving big cars is uncool, public transport is "in", and wasting oil is as bad as littering or smoking. And it would cost a fraction of what the alternatives imply, even if you had to pay off compensation to big oil and big auto companies.

Right on. No problem at all. Done in 6 months.

Or a decade.

Actively attempting to sway public opinion takes time, but I don't think there's any question that it can be done.

Mind you, last night I couldn't help noticing that one of our government-sponsored ads for cutting back on electricity usage "to help prevent climate change" was wedged between an ad for a plasma TV and an ad for a 4WD/SUV-type vehicle. The sad thing is that there will be viewers that will buy a new plasma TV and a new SUV, then think that switching off unused lights, or turning the A/C down a little will somehow compensate.

Its taken two decades of constant marketing to get us to being good consumers so I doubt they could come up with something that would convince us otherwise in less time..

Once again we have pointed out to us an example of the putative leadership being either ignorant, moronic or duplicitous. It is as if the general momentum of the political/ economic heirarchy and reality are on diverging or opposite courses.

Is there some motivation here or are they just dumb? It isn't pleasant having to choose between two derogatory options - or saying nothing at all. For those of us who have customarily chosen the latter, it has now got to the point where silence just doesn't seem appropriate anymore. Time's up.

Thanks RR, for putting it and putting it so well.

These insane numbers from DOE just prove, yet again, that it's a really bad idea to hire managers with backgrounds in economics or business to oversee a technically challenging organization. Lately, this approach appears to have become even more distorted, as the placement of these managers has been based on loyalty to the Party, aka., Gee Dubyah.

A large part of the blame for the worsening failure in Iraq can be placed on the selection of people based on ideology, not education or proven skills. Similar distortions have been seen in the actions of the executives concerned with Global Climate Change, where great effort was taken to change the presentation of the findings of scientists. As most people live in a Disney Land dream world, created for them by TV and movie producers, the politicians know that the public's perception is more important than the hard scientific reality. It's been said that the sport with the greatest attendance is auto racing. Nobody cares that the numbers being thrown out by the DOE are wrong, or the books cooked, as long as the oil companies deliver something to make all those SUV's and PU's continue to roll.

E. Swanson

Is there some motivation here or are they just dumb? It isn't pleasant having to choose between two derogatory options - or saying nothing at all. For those of us who have customarily chosen the latter, it has now got to the point where silence just doesn't seem appropriate anymore. Time's up.

Motivation? Yeah, the Dems are in the hip-pocket of Big Agriculture.

Archer Daniels writes them a check for their campaigns and they support Ethanol.

There is your motivation.

This article referred to figures touted by DOE, run by the Republicans. We also are aware that the Republican candidates support ethanol. Another article referred to McCain's flip flops. And yet you choose to rag on the Democrats.

Talk about motivation. Your motivation here seems heavily weighted with your obsession with Democrats when our energy problems are an equal opportunity problem.

Yeh, and I suppose that ADM is just supporting Democrats. Look, there are Democrats on this site that are more than willing to point out and acknowledge the flaws of their fellow Democrats. The whole system is corrupt with a need for campaign reform, lobbying reform, and limitations on the power of the corporations. But do you think the Republicans would support such an effort? Not on your life.

Subsidies for ethanol didn't somehow come from nowhere and emerge in the last year. This upsurge in ethanol occurred under the Bush administration and a congress run by Republicans. And yet, I suppose, we are to believe that it is only the Democrats who support these subsidies both to corn and ethanol.

This article referred to figures touted by DOE, run by the Republicans. We also are aware that the Republican candidates support ethanol. Another article referred to McCain's flip flops. And yet you choose to rag on the Democrats.

Talk about motivation. Your motivation here seems heavily weighted with your obsession with Democrats when our energy problems are an equal opportunity problem.

I'm not sure you understand here, the Democrats are in power. They hold both houses of congress. The Republicans are not in power. They have little input into energy legislation, especially in the House.

My high-lighting the failed Democratic leadership in congress is designed to point out their failure.

You want me to rag on the 2005 energy bill? What will that do for us NOW?

This problem is servere and needs to be addressed now.
Given that Hillary will probably be the next President I think it is important that we demonstrate NOW what a failure she'll be.

Don't pour too much effort into picking apart the Dems and Repubs on this.. clearly, they are both beholden to ADM, farm Lobby, etc..

None of these representatives feel too much 'in power' at this point, it seems to me. The Dems being 'in power' in both houses is by such a narrow margin that the same kind of 'divide and conquer' tactics employed elsewhere in the world is just as effective at stalling any movement in any direction by congress.

Follow the money.. obey your thirst.

Don't feed the ...etc

Ugh - as another pointed out - the complaint was that many groups, including the republican controlled DOE, are grossly distorting the amount of gasoline that is being substituted (if in reality it is any at all) - and you, as always turn it into a Dem bash

show me an energy bill that the Dems have passed, and has been signed by Bush, and I'll be more inclined to listen to your rants that this is a Dem vs Repub problem

and as others have pointed out - BOTH sides of congress take enormous amounts of $ from the ethanol and corn producers - so it's hardly a "Dem" problem

the expansion of ethanol production has occurred first under a Republican controlled White House and congress, and it continues under a Republican controlled White House and a (marginally if you discount Mr Lieberman) Democratic controlled Congress

Bush and his associates have touted ethanol as much as any Democratic candidate for Prez - why don't you point that out?

At this point in the 04 election cycle it looked like Howard Dean would be our next president. 7 months from now Hillary may not even still be in the race.

Democrats are in power. They hold both houses of congress. The Republicans are not in power.

Ummmm who's the president?

Everybody needs to take a breath. Pop some popcorn, grab a drink, and watch "Network" one more time.
"There are no governments, Mr. Beale. Only the International System of Systems. The Ebb and Flow of Capital...petrodollars... There are no Democrats, no Republicans..."

Our consumption created a Monster. That Monster is the Corporatocratic Socialist Union of Limited Liability Entities.

They buy and sell the government like overfed cattle. Hillary is no exception. There hasn't been an exception since Lincoln, and we know what happened to him. Maybe JFK, but same story, different time frame.

If you want Change, keep it in your pocket. Your dollar is your only vote, and when you spend it, you vote for your own demise, unless you spend it very wisely. We don't need Them. They need us.

... an example of the putative leadership being either ignorant, moronic or duplicitous.

It is as if the general momentum of the political/ economic heirarchy and reality are on diverging or opposite courses.

Well, there we go again.

We humans insist on believing that there is a "one true answer" to a question whose underlying premises are themselves questionable (i.e., questions that present false choice menus).

And accordingly, some here elect to point the one right index finger that Mother Nature gave us, blamingly at the "putative leadership" and others at the "Corporatocratic" animal.

Perhaps the more appropriate thing to do is not fling the blame mud (as we caged apes are wont to do) but rather to step back and appreciate that we each are of limited cognitive abilities.

Scientists discovered that some bird species display brilliant plumages in the UV range, a part of the spectrum that human vision is blind to. So we are simply incapable of directly seeing the bigger picture.

It is kind of the same thing for those of our species who elect to become politicians or giants of the Corpocratic world or members of some other religious cult.

They don't intend to do wrong. They simply can't see all the colors of the wind.

Given that Hillary will probably be the next President I think it is important that we demonstrate NOW what a failure she'll be.

As opposed to the glorious success that the Bush Administration have proven to be so far?

If we divide this problem into Dem vs Rep we are truly screwed.

As a group, society does not like "bad news" particularly as it has been aptly described as the "iron triangle." Spreading bad news is not welcome if your entire system is a reactive (rather than proactive) system.

Even on the subject of peak oil, you see this. Let's take the most recent published EIA presentation on Peak Oil

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/speeches/Caruso061305.pdf

Looking at slide 12...even if these guys believe this and wish that the band will play on, do they understand what those curves mean when constrained by their assumptions of growth, URR and R/P = 10? There is no evidence that they do, but the graphs show very vividly is one thing and one thing only...collapse!

Collapse of supply and collapse of everything dependent upon oil production. These aren't somebody else's curves (e.g, Campbell-Laherrere from Scientific American Magazine in 1998. Then again, Campbell and Laherrere are starting to look spot on), these are the EIA's. Maybe it's about keeping the gravy train rolling until "they" die. Then it's SEP (Somebody Else's Problem) because then they'll be taking the "long dirt nap."

starship trooper,
thanks for that link to the EIA pdf. Its amazing. All I know is I want some of the drug they've been ingesting.

Bob Ebersole

At least the've been consistent(sort of). Other versions can be found at:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2004/world...

and

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/presentations/2000/long_ter...

{Note: of the three published presentations, this 2000 presentation is the only one that has anything close to what looks "realistic." See slide 14. At the optimistic "mean" URR of 3000 GB and a symmetrical 2% growth and decline curve, governed by the area under the curve, they suggest a peak of 2016. At the "low" URR of 2248 GB, that peak would come much, much sooner (like "now"). It should also be noted that using available EIA data and estimates of past production and production since 1982, the Hubbert linearization is "aimed" directly at 2215 GB URR. To get remotely close to the URR "mean" values would require a significant and sustained departure from production characteristics for the past 15 years.}

The EIA keeps shoving that peak date just a little further away (I wonder what the IEO will look like when the finally approach the edge of their scenarios out 25-30 years or when it finally occurs to them that even these curves useless because the peak passed them by). Will they use the word "collapse?"

Given their history in the yearly IEO, they won't figure out that things really peaked until 6-10 years after the fact (just look at their North Sea predictions, as one example. But even their area by area outlook tends to be very rosy and largely a "cut and paste" job from the previously year's outlook).

Another example of rosiness (for Alaska) can be seen at:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/futur...

Produced in 2001 (with data through 2000, but apparently they did not get the message that 2000 production data was already down to 970.7 thousand barrels per day) they predicted another rosy scenario. All numbers are in thousands of barrels per day:

Year Projected Actual Difference

2001 1065.6 962.9 (-102.7)
2002 1059.8 984.7 ( -75.1)
2003 1061.3 974.6 ( -86.7)
2004 1086.0 908.8 (-177.2)
2005 1058.5 864.5 (-194.0)
2006 990.0 741.5 (-248.5)
2007 916.0 756.2 (5-month average)

Admittedly, they do a reasonable job of tracking and accumulating data. But as far as being useful for a predictive capacity and for making informed policy decisions...questionable. It gives the appearance of someone drinking the kool-aid. Remember Morten-Thiokol giving the "no problem" from headquarters in Utah over the objections of the on-site launch team representative for the launch of the Challenger? We know how that turned out.

I want to add that it was the EIA that placed the peak date of 2004 on Campbell and Laherrere's article (in 1998, the were looking at conventional oil and stated in that article that they thought the peak was going to occur by 2010). Today's IPM shows the highest production month for C+C is still May 2005. So far, it looks like Campbell and Laherrere's miss of 5 months is much better than the EIA's miss by 40 years.

Remember Morten-Thiokol giving the "no problem" from headquarters in Utah over the objections of the on-site launch team representative for the launch of the Challenger? We know how that turned out.

Actually, I remember it, but a bit differently. Thiokol engineers were the responsible ones who wanted to delay the launch, though you may be referring to Thiokol management finally overruling them. Pretty chilling stuff.

Just for historical accuracy:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5175151

Yes, I was referring to the Thiokol management overruling the onsight Thiokol manager.

Wow! So the EIA really believes that Canadian bitumen production can be ramped up to 40 billion barrels per year, at a constant 6% growth rate?

I have to pinch myself to realise that someone actually believes that rubbish. And 60+ billion barrels of oil, all told, at peak. It is just utterly incredible.

Pretty remarkable, isn't it. I guess it's their response to the cover of the H2G2 ("Don't panic") as they try to come up with the answer of 42.

40 billion barrels a year is around 120 million a day compared to about 1-2 million today. Just try to imagine the infrastructure they would have to build to ramp up to that level of production. They are already running our of the gas needed to process it. Companies are currently spending multiple billions to add 100,000 barrels a day in capacity. 60% recovery when much of it must be buried thousands of feet down! That's what happens when you start with a demand number and back into what the supply will have to be.

I understood that the oil sands production was running at about 1 million barrels per day, at the moment. The highest production estimate I'd seen previously was 5 million, though 3-4 million seemed to be the expectation (with huge investment). 120 million just seems laughable, by comparison. Surely, only desperate people would even contemplate such a figure.


A reddit link if you are so inclined:

http://science.reddit.com/info/2d2j1/comments

and here's a link to the /. firehose:

http://slashdot.org/firehose

In the quantity used in 2006, the vast majority of ethanol replaces MTBE, not gasoline. MTBE is made from natural gas. Viewed in this context, the statements about replacement of gasoline are even more questionable.

See my article from June Corn-Based Ethanol: Is This a Solution?

The only useful thing I learned from reading Rush Limbaugh's first book (not mine!) was to NEVER trust the facts of someone with an agenda.

I think the TRICK is that corn-based ethanol can displace OIL but not fossil fuels.

David Morris and the Institute for Local Self-Reliance promote a "carbohydrate economy" which I might believe is possible if we can scale back our energy consumption by 98% and never moved the biomass more than 100 miles.
http://www.ilsr.org/
http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/

I remember a report they had which claimed every gallon of ethanol producted displaced SEVEN gallons of oil, apparently because coal and natural gas were principle energy sources for the growing of corn and processing of the ethanol.

So if you allow coal&NG to replace oil (via ethanol) then multpliers are POSSIBLE - I'm not taking a position on the honesty or accuracy of the claims.

On Mr. Dickerson's comment:

Over 6 billion gallons of ethanol were produced in the United States last year, and we have an additional 5 billion gallons of refining capacity under construction.

That effort means 500 million fewer barrels of oil that we have to import from the Middle East.

In fairness, I don't think we can definitively say that one is wrong, only greatly misleading. He didn't say the 500 million barrels not imported were saved last year. The time period is undefined. Perhaps he meant the 6 billion gallons of current production plus the additional 5 billions gallons of ethanol production capacity under construction will, over a long enough time period, save 500 million gallons of oil.

He did use the phase "we have to", implying the saving is in the future, as opposed to "we had to".

Not that I buy his claim of course.

That works out to be 4.2 years for the 5 billion gallons straight number to number. If the 64 million Barrels worth of Oil is used then it is 7.8 years for the 5 billion in capcity.

But the numbers won't stop there, if you do an EROEI for the whole lot, you might have to extend the 500 million barrels of Oil saved out for several decades. Which in the end really amounts to chicken feed in reality.

I vote for them knowing what they are saying and that they just hope we don't figure it out till after they put in place the fix on the Corn/Other grains versus food.

What gets me is other nations are going to be using these numbers because of who said them, and then making policy based on them and they are going to get screwed out of food and rain forest because they are listening to a bunch of uncaring liars.

Charles.

What gets me is other nations are going to be using these numbers because of who said them, and then making policy based on them and they are going to get screwed out of food and rain forest because they are listening to a bunch of uncaring liars.

I don't know about that. Up until this decade, information put out by the US government was widely considered the least biased, most scientifically accurate information out there, and most countries could use our data with relative confidence. Now we have about the same level of trust as Bagdad Bob. If any country trusts us now, they will get screwed.

Just the mention of the name Baghdad Bob brings a smile to my face.

I think the TRICK is that corn-based ethanol can displace OIL but not fossil fuels.

Incidentally, these are the sorts of comments that will help me tighten up the FAQ. I knew how they were coming up with the numbers, but I hadn't explicitly explained why that is wrong.

I think that by considering how much oil could be displaced if you just found a lake of ethanol is useful. In that case, you have no fossil fuel or petroleum inputs. How much then can 1 BTU of ethanol displace? Only 1 BTU of fossil fuel - that is the theoretical limit unless you are using the ethanol in some kind of alternate end use technology. Yes, if you could feed it into a fusion machine, you would get a muliplicative effect.

My goal for the FAQ is to leave nothing open to the imagination. I am looking to wrap it in a bullet-proof vest.

My goal for the FAQ is to leave nothing open to the imagination. I am looking to wrap it in a bullet-proof vest.

That is impossible.
Every human being decodes the words and symbols on this web page in a different way. --You can never truly know what weirdness happens in my brain. (Of course, you can imagine.)

Take your word, "displace".
That could mean so many different things to different people. (Yes, I know you meant BTU-wise. But do they? You didn't repeatedly spell it out.)

How much then can 1 BTU of ethanol displace? Only 1 BTU of fossil fuel - that is the theoretical limit unless you are using the ethanol in some kind of alternate end use technology. Yes, if you could feed it into a fusion machine, you would get a muliplicative effect.

For some reason this causes me to remember Dmitry Orlov's tale of getting across post-collapse Russia using ethanol:

"Each half-liter bottle of vodka was exchanged for ten liters of gasoline, giving vodka far greater effective energy density than rocket fuel."

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060105_soviet_lessons.shtml

Could be that if you stay drunk enough, you'd have less of a need to drive around. Just because it's a funny notion doesn't mean there's not a deep truth there.

Robert, is it possible that *some* of the inflation in these official stats could be based on the fact that only a fraction of the barrel actually appears as *gasoline* (for which the ethanol is presumably substituting directly). What would that ratio (gallons replaced to barrels replaced) give us?I regret I don't have that ratio - but the calculation is simple.

To clarify: if, as FRA says, 116 million barrels of ethanol was produced (and if, for the moment, we pretend a gallon of ethanol is as good as a gallon of gas), how many barrels of *oil* would be replaced (or, how many barrels of *oil* are required to produce 116 million barrels of *gasoline*)?

Seems to me that things would be clearer if all the numbers were in a common unit... mixing barrels and gallons and BTUs seems to me part of the problem, part of why these statistical statements confuse the unready readers... BTUs mean little to a gasoline consumer, I suspect. Of course the conclusions you draw are still sound, and the lesson important; it would just be easier to see why if we (you) converted everything into the same unit (for your FAQs, I think this would be effective).

Ever grateful for the ongoing education,

Shane

To you and Tom both, yes, this is how they have come up with these numbers - by making some invalid assumptions. They are assuming that since only 1/6th or so of the BTUs embedded in a BTU of ethanol come from oil (the rest are from natural gas or coal), that a BTU of ethanol can actually displace more than 1 BTU of oil.

But consider this for a moment. Consider if none of the inputs into ethanol were from oil. In this case your multiplier would be infinite. How much oil could ethanol displace? No more than the BTUs that are contained in the ethanol. A 1 to 1 BTU replacement is is the best you could get if the ethanol was free of any energy inputs, and just available for pumping out of a well. That is your maximum theoretical displacement.

Yes, exactly, so my question would be, to what extent are the numbers being thrown around *exceeding* that maximum theoretical displacement? It would seem to me that would be where you would want to first aim your critique (it seems they're still very high). Then you could twist the knife, so to speak, by pointing to all those assumptions that are ignored in the initial claims and that reduce the actual displacement further.

My point on the common unit stands, however. I really don't see an audience (student) grasping this without *someone* doing the work of converting the figures... and better the one who presents them, no?

That's the whole point of the statement:

To be precise, 116 million barrels of ethanol contain the BTU equivalent of 64 million barrels of oil.

What that means is that the maximum theoretical displacement if you just found a lake of ethanol containing 116 million barrels would be 64 million barrels of oil.

Hi Robert,

If it is possible to make the argument that we import particular kinds of oil to make gasoline, and we could use domestic sources or "fiendly" sources for the other products that come from the imported crude, then a multiplier could make sense. An energy independence calculation might not always be energy conserving on its face. If this is how they are doing their calculations and they say so, then I think you need to find the flaw in their assumptions by looking at the practices of importers and refiners.

I think it is perfectly OK for them to say that they are doing their part in displacing the imported oil so long as they can point to others who are picking up the other parts such as displacing jet fuel, heating oil and diesel. Together they are all displacing the same oil.

As you point out, they are not displacing fossil fuel consumption, but this is a different calculation.

I love the 'fiendly' sources of oil. I know it's just a typo, but what delightful connotations; you may have been misconscrued.

I knew that didn't look right so I checked that the i was before the e. Thanks for including a typo in your reply. That was a friendly gesture.

The policy seems to be get this point across to the american people that we are doing something about the problem, here is what we are doing, this is why you can spend those hard earned dollars on the nice products that you can buy on credit, this is going to save your collective behinds so don't worry.

That policy seems to be what is going on. We can lie to the dumb american joe six pack, because he won't ask why the numbers don't match up, because he can't figure out what the numbers mean, he was to busy watching american Idol that night and we can just candy coat this all, and still get our leaders elected and our bonus checks in the mail and everything will be just fine for a few more years, then I can retire.

It is summer, it is hot, so don't worry come fall when the temps go down, everything will be normal again and we can settle into a real happy holiday season.

Yay, no worries, we'll all be fine come elcetion time.

--Rant off--

Oil Displacement

1) We have roughly: 168 million cars, 63 million light trucks, and 5 million SUVs that account for 236 million of the 239 million vehicles -- 98.7% of all vehicles (fhwa.dot.gov, yr2000 data).

2) The auto industry sells about 16 million new vehicles per year -- 6.7% of the total, so about 15 years to replace at that rate (Edmunds).

3) "Battery Electric Vehicles" or BEVs require NO gasoline or diesel to operation, and EPRI-NRDC has said that there is "abundant supply of electricity for transportation".

Question: How many BEVs would we have to sell each year to mitigate/match the oil supply depletion? For instance, 2.39 million BEVs per year would replace 1% of the fleet (and therefore 1% of fuel use).

Guys, the numbers are so out of line that I can only conclude that they are meant to confuse the issue until the conference Energy Bill is negotiated. In other words, purposeful deception, or lies.

What's truly scary is that the oil industry lobbying groups are going to concede the Ethanol provisions so they can focus on the injustice of "punative taxation".

Who is going to represent the American people? Once again, the energy situation isn't a partisan issue, its not right or left. I've now officially quit all the parties, I think I'm a wobbly, an anarcho-syndicalist. The whores in Washington represent only themselves.

Just a little note, my Congressman Ron Paul didn't even show up for the vote on these bills. He was too busy campaigning in Iowa and doesn't consider energy important. Source: Houston Chronicle las Sunday.
Bob Ebersole

Robert, as a P.S., I answered your comment on yesterday's API thread, please read it.
Bob Ebersole

Check the guys over at FARK. Mathematically challenged:

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2984240

Heh, PG took the gloves off for those guys. (:

Robert,

It appears as if they simply reversed the ratio (to their advantage, of course):

116 million barrels ethanol / 170 million barrels oil = 0.68

My guess is that this is simply an example of innumeracy, which happens to make the etoh industy look good so it was never fact checked...

Interesting observation, and it makes me wonder. But, most of the BTU value of a barrel of oil is higher than that of gasoline, so if you are talking about BTU replacement, ethanol only equals 55% of oil.

On topic, here's a page from a paper on Renewable Energy Systems I'm currently writing:

Liebig’s Law of the minimum states that the production of a good or resource is limited by its least available input. In layman’s terms something is only as good as its weakest link. This form of ecological stoichiometry will loom large in the procurement of energy alternative to fossil fuels. Water, land, soil, greenhouse gas emissions, and specific fossil inputs themselves will potentially limit scaling of alternative energy.

EROI is generally measured as the ratio of the gross energy return to the amount of energy invested. However, it has been argued that this can give a false indicator of the desirability of a process because of the increasing cost of non-energy requirements as EROI approaches 1 (Giampietro et al. 1997). Following Giampietro et al. (1997), let ω = EROI/(EROI – 1) be the ratio of gross to net energy produced. ω equals the amount of energy production required to yield 1 MJ of net energy. From an energy perspective, this is not worrisome since all costs have been covered. However, for non-energy requirements the perspective and the implications, change.

Let EROXI be the energy return for 1 unit of non-energy requirement X. Then 1/ EROXI is the number of units of X required for 1 MJ gross energy production. From the above, it is easily seen that ω/EROXI units of X are required, or more generally, the net energy yielded per unit of X is equal to EROXI/ω. Since ω increases non-linearly (approaching infinity) as EROI approaches 1, a relatively small change in EROI can produce a large decrease in the “net EROI” for non-energy requirements. For energy production processes with significant non-energy requirements such as biofuels, this suggests a low EROI can imply strong limitations on their ability to be scaled up (Giampietro et al. 1997, Hill et al. 2006)

If we assume the Intermediate Boundary EROI for non-cellulosic ethanol from corn is in the neighborhood of 1.34 (Farrell et al. 2006), this implies net energy of .34 for every 1 unit of energy input. The ethanol Energy Return on Land Invested (EROLI) = 11,633 MJ/ha gross energy production (equivalent to 3475 liters per hectare). However, the net energy per unit of land is only 2,908 MJ/ha. At 2004 levels of gasoline consumption for the United States, this is equivalent to consuming the net energy production of 42 hectares of cropland per second. If the EROI of ethanol is reduced to 1.2, a decrease of only 10%, the net return on land decreases by 33% while the amount of land required to achieve this same net yield increases by 50%. Conversely, an oil well requires equipment access, roads, etc. but pulls its bounty out of a comparatively small land area. This contrast has significant implications for the potential scale of biofuel production (Giampietro et al. 1997). In effect, due to significant power density differentials, replacing energy-dense liquid fuels from crude oil with less energy dense biomass fuels will utilize 1,000- to 10,000-fold increases in land area relative to our existing energy infrastructure. (Cleveland, 2007)

Land is one limiting factor, but water may be another. In a forthcoming paper, we use Multicriteria EROI analysis to define and quantify the EROWI (Energy Return on Water Invested) for various energy production technologies. Since water and energy may both be limiting, we care about the “Net EROWI”, which is a combined measure of EROI and EROWI for each technology. With the exception of wind and solar which use water only in indirect inputs, the “Net EROWI” of biofuels are one to two orders of magnitude lower than conventional fossil fuels. We also determined that approximately 2/3 of the world population (by country) will have limitations on bioenergy production by 2025, due to other demands for water. (Mulder et al. 2007)

Furthermore, biofuels, especially the ethanols, require large amounts of natural gas for fertilizer, pesticides and primary electricity to concentrate the ethanol. In areas that have natural gas fired electricity plants (as opposed to coal), fully 84% of the energy inputs into corn ethanol are from natural gas (the nitrogen, a portion of the pesticides, and the electricity). (Shapouri 2002). Were the math on corn ethanol somehow scalable to 30% of our national gasoline consumption, in addition to land and water, we would use more than the entire yearly amount of natural gas currently used for home heating as an input.

The people in the DOE, nor Senator Clinton, are talking about water, land and natural gas limitations to ethanol scaling. This country is really reluctant to believe that certain aspects of our lifestyle are non-negotiable. Conservation and efficiency can fill our energy import bucket 1/4 of the way. Corn ethanol would be a few drops.

A few quibbles.

"EROI" is used by the financial types to mean "Energy Return on Investment", meaning dollars. It is more precise to use "Energy Return on Energy Invested", or EROEI. Also, note that your term "ω" can become negative, as in the case of gasoline, where some energy is used to produce the oil, then transport and refine and deliver it to the consumer.

Also, while it's important to calculate the land and water requirements for biofuel production, remember that water is renewable, even though it's availability is often limited. Many processes require water, but the water will be released back into the local environment after it is used. If the waste is in the form of liquid water, it can be treated and put to use again. Water use in agriculture results in evaporation, precluding it's further use at the time, but one can expect that a similar amount of water will be available again during following seasons. Water is not like a fossil fuel that can only be used once.

E. Swanson

Gasoline technically doesnt have an EROI, since oil has an EROI and gasoline is a conversion of oil. (Just like electricity is a conversion of coal). So gasoline is a combination of the EROI of oil and the efficiency of refining it - this has caused a great deal of confusion. And the energy literature is all EROI, not EROEI. Charlie Hall and Cutler Cleveland cringe when they see EROEI. (To me they're identical - not Charlie and Cutler, but EROI and EROEI)

Our water paper distinguishes between water withdrawals and water consumption. Indeed there is water permanently lost, or at least lost to the specific watershed in many instances. There is also the higher energy requirement to irrigate. Dry land corn has a significantly lower yield than irrigated crops, and at times, NO yield. Plus many areas use fossil as opposed to renewable acquifers and it is unclear if the water makes its way back fully to those underground lakes (Ogallala in NE, CO, OK, KS comes to mind)

I agree water limitations are more nuanced than oil, because the flows are not 'thermodynamic' (e.g heat loss), but its something that cannot be assumed away in an analysis of biofuels.

While you may be technically correct, putting it as EROEI makes it clear that the comparison is totally concerned with net energy rather than some monetary value assigned to it. When it becomes obvious to the general society that you can't print or borrow energy, then we can go to the short form. I like the educational aspect of the long form,and, considering that it is now officially an Approved Acronym, one more keystroke isn't a hardship.

Robert,

as well as showing the [gaping] holes in industry figures, is it possible to start out with a headline figure of how much net gas equivalent HAS been added to the US market via ethanol? (before making the point that this hasn't actually offset petroleum gas one iota)

I'm talking about headline punch - defendable: they say X, actually it's Y - but even Y doesn't contribute...

Like a mini-executive summary to start off with.
--
Jaymax (cornucomer-doomopian)

For what it's worth, I had the same take on it: that it would be better to see EROEI used when possible. There's a simple concept there that is missed by most people, let's change the convention and your article is a fine place to start.

And your paper probably makes the distinction, but it's presumably clean fresh water which is limited. Making a qualitative distinction between that and higher-entropy water mixtures which have fewer uses might be good.

I've been interested in the net energy question for about 30 years. The use of EROEI vs. EROI is important, as most folks in business are going to look at EROI and think about the economic relation of dollars in to barrels (or BTU's) out. It's important to send the proper message and using EROEI does this clearly. Please don't be stubborn.

There is indeed an EROEI for the products of crude, as there is an inescapable energy requirement in both the recovery of oil and in it's processing. The fact that this is less than 1 is part of the message, which is, oil production is not sustainable. As the discussion further down the postings points out, an energy source with an EROEI slightly above 1.0, such as corn based ethanol, sustainability is far from assured. Of course, the energy to produce the corn ethanol may come from another primary source, such as coal or NG or even nuclear electricity, but those energy sources may be useful in their own ways, such as coal generated electricity or thermal energy from burning NG directly, but these other FF's will ultimately be depleted just like oil.

If you really want to get into it, you need to start with the primary energy source, the sun, which causes plants to grow and drives the hydrological cycle. Plants are rather poor at converting solar energy to captured energy as plant materials, which is the main reason for the large areas required to produce biofuels. There are much more efficient techniques to convert solar to useful energy, but they require more structure and cost more. Biofuels may not be the answer, because of food production priorities. Right now, the corn diverted to ethanol production has not made a big dent in food available, although there are reports that we are at the edge of a problem there too.

Lost in almost all discussions about energy is the fact that all civilization is powered by solar energy. That's because people are powered by eating food derived from plants and plant growth depends on sunlight. As Peak Oil becomes a reality and things get tight, the ultimate question for most of humanity may be:

"Which would you rather do, eat or drive?".

E. Swanson

There is indeed an EROEI for the products of crude, as there is an inescapable energy requirement in both the recovery of oil and in it's processing. The fact that this is less than 1 is part of the message, which is, oil production is not sustainable.

I thought that the EROEI of a derivative should be expressed as

EROEI,derivative = EROEI,source * Efficiency,making_derivative_from_source

Is this not the usual definition? Besides, if costing energy to produce automatically means an EROEI <1 and non-sustainablity, then AFAIK all energy sources have EROEI <1 and are not sustainable.

Using the above definition, with crude oil EROEI of ≈8 and refining efficiency ≈90%, oil product EROEI ≈7. This means that corn ethanol with (optimistically) 30-60% positive returns is competing against petroleum products with 600% positive returns.

(Although I hear good things about Brazillian sugar-cane ethanol {EROEI = 6?}, this also underscores the disadvantage of corn sugar ethanol.)

Robert, I just got off the phone with Jane Van Ryan of the API. I mentioned this thread, and she said that you've now become the Ethanol Expert, and mentioned the Rolling Stone article.

I'm trying to get API to come to Houston for the ASPO conference. We need every ally we can get, and they have the ear and pocketbook of the big oil boys. And, with any luck a Hospitality Suite full of cold boiled shrimp and free drinks, like at the OTC. Wouldn't it be great if we could get them behind Alan Drake's Electrification of Rail proposal? Its the only practical plan I've heard for reducing our oil useage 10% in the next ten years. I want the majors to see that, because with the admitted energy shortfall from the NPC report we have to start on mitigation right now to avoid economic disaster. If they expect to avoid the axe in 18 months, the big oil boys need to promote a conservation plan right now, and his plan won't hurt their sales.

If the big oil guys immediately get behind positive mitigation proposals they may just avoid being broken up. If they get behind this ethanol nonsense they are going to be blamed when, not if, but when the plan becomes a disaster. The sooner they realise that they are the designated scapegoat in all of this and put their money and minds into a real mitigation strategy, the better chance they have of surviving.

This new energy bill is a disaster. Bush is going to veto it, and it will be 18 months before the US does anything about energy, the worst possible outcome. Ethanol is just one of the terrible provisions.Bob Ebersole

Would it really be so bad if big oil companies got forcibly broken up?

I really don't see Western economies making much serious progress towards a more sensible and sustainable form of existence while we have these vast multi-national companies with mind-boggling profits that will do anything to resist change.

wizofaus,

It happened once before, when Congress busted up the Standard Oil Trust of Rockefeller. I think it would be counter-productive, as we need companies large enough and diverse enough to deal with the national oil companies.

But at that point, Standard had virtually all the US refining and marketing, and the US wasn't nearly so dependent on oil and gas. Now the US companies control only 1/8th of the world production, the rest being controlled by national oil companies (NOC), and even less of the refining and marketing.

The point I'm making is that no matter your beliefs, everybody deserves a fair hearing. The big oil companies have done a piss-poor job of educating the American public about what's required to explore for and develop oil, or the dependence of the economy on oil. They've gotten horrible negative publicity with supporting fake scientists on climate change. That's deserved, but it colors the other info people need to understand, and they've destroyed credibility by backing a lie.

When they get the consequences of this behaviour in "punative taxation" it hurts the independents in the oil patch too. The last time this happened was Nixon's price controls on oil about 1972, followed by the "windfall profits tax". The consequence-the majors went to drilling and producing overseas, and the best US prospects , under old oilfields and deep offshore were never drilled. In the last 30 years most of the good offshore prospects and federal lands prospects have been put offlimits, while the majors have forgotten how to develop deep onshore prospects on onshore producing structures. And, the independents had exactly the same penalties applied to them, deserved or not.

At any rate, if they'd get around ASPO they might get a dose of reality about how their positions have hurt them. They might figure out better ways to get their positions across. They might get a dose of reality themselves, and help us get our message to congress and the American people-they've got the money and the influence that we don't have. And, its not going to hurt anybody to at least talk.
Bob Ebersole

I don't have any particular opinion about your "punative taxation" concerns (though I do believe all fossil fuel processing companies should be paying for necessary carbon permits), but I do not believe that companies the size of ExxonMobil making the profits they do, and weilding the sort of influence they do, are healthy for a dynamic, functional and foward-looking free-enterprise economy. There are always going to be corporations who engage in less than ethical behaviour to protect their interests, but in an environment where they are just one player among many of a similar size, this is unlikely to lead to the situation we have now we the still-strong AGW-denialist (and PO-denialist!) lobby.

If you don't also break up the national oil companies, you'll have accomplished approximately nothing.

Good luck with that.

Glad to see you delving into this issue in more detail than your original post over at R-Squared. Certainly calling out overwrought claims about the benefits of ethanol is important whether you're a supporter or not, and the numbers you sight from RFA and others are silly at best. But conversely, you need to keep your own logic clear.

For instance, you seem to be suggesting that the increase in ethanol production is somehow causing our increase reliance on gasoline rather than just coincidental. As I mentioned in my comments over at R-Squared, the studies of the amount of petroleum that goes into the lifecycle of ethanol production are in general agreement that it's pretty low-- equal to about 5% of the energy in the finish ethanol. You're right to point out that other fossil fuels play a much larger role, which is why I would again urge you to take up GHG displacement as a critical metric.

Also as to why no displacement is evident by eyeballing charts, you have to take into account how we're using ethanol right now. We're using it as an oxygenate rather than for its Btus. Through last year, ethanol was mostly displacing MTBE. (You dismissed this too quickly in your response on R-Squared. As I understand it, MTBE consumption was equal to about 5 billion gallons of ethanol in 2005 and displacement when into high gear after Congress refused to offer MTBE liability protection to the oil industry.) So on the one hand, most of the nearly 5 billion gallons of ethanol produced probably didn't displace any oil; on the other detecting displacement would be very difficult because the displacement isn't on a btu basis. As an oxygenate, ethanol still reduces the btu content of the blended fuel, but provides other value on a volumetric basis.

In the end, I'd just reiterate my basic point: there are a lot of reasons that ethanol from corn has limited ability to scale and there are a lot of exaggerated claims. Most of these claims are about its benefits, but many are about its harmful impacts. The fact of the matter is that we don't use much oil to produce corn ethanol so if there were no other limitations and oil displacement was all that mattered, corn ethanol would be a oil alternative. Rather than trying to attack corn ethanol for one of the things it does well, we should be trying to focus the debate on the issues that really matter such as GHG emissions.

Please visit my blog on clean energy technologies and policies at: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ngreene/

nathanael
The energy balance of ethanol is completely a red herring. What people need to consider is the relative not the absolute energy balance, and this point has been lost in hundreds of debates over whether ethanol is slightly positive or slightly negative EROI.

What matters is the power density of biomass, and the lack of energy gain compared to a fossil fuel infrastructure built on 100+ times the energy gain thrown off from ethanol.

Ethanol and other low energy return biofuels are fine. But not for a planet of 6 billion with high rises, hospitals, shopping centers and other high power density, (low land use) structures. The fact that an energy source is renewable does not magically endow it with the physical characteristics of what its intended to replace. If we can't find comparable fuels, we have to change consumption and infrastructure.

If society runs on 100 fruits, and we are running short of apples, we decide to subsitute grapes. Each apple gives us 10 units but a grape only 1. If we substitute 50 grapes for apples we lost due to orchard decay, we still have 100 fruits, but now only 550 units of usable energy for work instead of 1000. This same principle will hold the more we disguise replacing high energy gain coal, nat gas, and oil with lower energy gain renewables. It's not set in stone due to possibilities of demand infrastructure and consumption changes - but there is only a finite amount of the high energy gain, constantly flowing, energy and power dense, easy to get out fruit.

I am putting up a guest post here tomorrow from Cutler Cleveland on the essential aspects of alternative energy which will discuss this in more detail. Hi to Dan and Wesley.

Nate,

You highlight an important point I want to elaborate on.

Crude oil is a very energy dense material that is refined into gasoline which is a less energy dense material by volume. We don't argue to much about how much energy is lost in this conversion because we can't substitute the crude for gasoline in the tank.

Conversely ethanol is trying to take something that has low energy per unit volume and convert it to something that has higher energy per volume, say cubic foot. Clearly we consume energy in the conversion but again the starting material can't be used in a tank only the end product.

So at the heart of the debate is that with fossil fuels you typically go down hill energy wise to the consumer product but in renewables its all uphill. If this premise is correct one will never find an equivalent energy replacement for fossil fuels. This does not mean that the liquid fuels (or even electricity) from renewables is not valuable in its own right.

What it does say is that we can't ever hope to produce the volume of end products from renewables that we can from fossil fuels. IMHO this is what is missing from the American debate. Not that there is no place for renewable liquids but that our overall consumption must change or those renewable liquids won't solve any of the problems.

There are some things that internal combustion engines can do better than brute muscle power. High torque at high rpm generates lots of horsepower to do work. Converting biomass to ethanol or biodiesel makes sense if you use those products for the right uses. Knowing when we need this mechanical horsepower rather than muscle power is what underlies our over consumption of liquid fuels today.

YES!

"one will never find an equivalent energy replacement for fossil fuels"

I don't know what you mean by an "equivalent energy replacement". I would agree that it's highly unlikely we'll ever come up with a way to manufacture sufficient liquid fuel to power the world's internal combusion engines, and it will certainly never be done as easily and inexpensively as refining crude oil (or even converting gas or coal to liquids). But I don't think anyone (except perhaps CERA and their 2040 plateau) seriously believes internal combustion engines have much of a long term future.

Welcome to TOD Ngreene...

A note of caution is warranted for once you step foot on the TOD ethanol merry-go-round, you may never get off!

The gist of your position is parallel to much of what I've mentioned here at TOD for what seems ad infinitum.

Again as a refresher...

Peak Oil represents a liquid transportation fuels crisis, ergo whatever (now post-peak) liquid fuel strategy we should choose to implement, the PETROLEUM INPUT RATIO or PIR of the alternative in question (not to mention every human activity on the planet) is the ONLY thing that matters.

Ethanol (yes even corn ethanol) has a low PIR and the harder Robert tries to dance around the subject, the closer he gets to admitting it.

Ditto the btu charade.

E10 (the primary use for American ethanol as mentioned by Gail) has no affect on vehicle mileage. E85 meanwhile, despite being a ridiculous fuel for a GM Yukon, is king when utilized in an optimized Bio-PHEV produced by GM's European subsidiary.

That said, I couldn't help but smile when I saw the following from your post under the R-squared ethanol FAQ:

"All I can say is that from my work on Capitol Hill, the idea that big oil is fine with ethanol just doesn't hold water. I've been on panels with Red Cavanaugh from API and heard from Hill staffers the arguments made by oil lobbyists and oil industry is certainly fighting biofuels policies."

I think it's great that the oil industry has chosen Robert as their ethanol expert - congratulations.

The ethanol industry on the other hand...

Peak Oil represents a liquid transportation fuels crisis, ergo whatever (now post-peak) liquid fuel strategy we should choose to implement, the PETROLEUM INPUT RATIO or PIR of the alternative in question (not to mention every human activity on the planet) is the ONLY thing that matters.

Syntec my friend, once more around the block...
This is NOT true, it only seems like it now. Environmental lobbies have been so good about beating up coal and nuclear that it appears there will be even more natural gas fired plants built. Artificially low natural gas prices are causing people to believe that they (and their derivatives; pesticides, plastics, fertilizers, etc.) are not limiting inputs. 2009 and beyond nat gas futures strip made all time highs last week. I am talking to people in the industry that tell me warm winters and mild summers with no hurricane have kept a short term glut but next time up over $10 we will go to $20++. I believe them.

Look at this chart:

Its only a matter of time before someone starts doing NATURAL GAS INPUT RATIOs on biofuels.

There are MANY limiting inputs to corn ethanol, not just petroleum.

Other than that I liked your post.

Hi Nate -
Do I read this chart correctly ?

Jezz, are there more than 400 thousand separate and active gas-holes in the ground, in US soil/offshore ?

thx

Ethanol (yes even corn ethanol) has a low PIR and the harder Robert tries to dance around the subject, the closer he gets to admitting it.

Ditto the btu charade.

Truly I expected more from you, Syntec. This was very weak. The BTU "charade" is meant to show the maximum theoretical displacement. Had I subracted out the petroleum inputs, the potential displacement goes down. The "charade" has nothing to do with a low PIR, and never have I danced around that subject. If you read a bit more carefully, you will see that that the topic being addressed is the claimed petroleum displacement by ethanol. The BTU content of the ethanol gives the maximum value, hence the BTU calculation. Did you really not get that, or are you the one who is dancing and spinning?

E10 (the primary use for American ethanol as mentioned by Gail) has no affect on vehicle mileage.

As you (must) know, that is contradicted by numerous studies. Show me an official government test in which no effect was demonstrated. I can show you plenty in which an effect was demonstrated. And you know that, yet you spin a different tale.

That said, I couldn't help but smile when I saw the following from your post under the R-squared ethanol FAQ:

I presume you also saw my response:

If you haven't noticed, there has been a decided shift in opinion in the last year on this. Look at the failure of ethanol to displace any/much gasoline, and the way it is impacting natural gas prices, and a lot of people I know figured out that this is good for the oil business.

Really, Syntec, was this your best effort? Instead of just coming out and admitting that the claims are false, we get treated to all this spin where you don't even address the subject of the essay.

Correction: I should have stated that E10 has a negliable affect on mileage of around 2-3% vs. gasoline. An affect that is mitigated if the ethanol blended fuel is cheaper.

Robert,

Excellent post but I have a suggestion. You note that ethanol has not changed the oil consumption trend noticeably. The reader might infer that you are making the argument that ethanol has therefore not at all decreased oil consumption relative to the counterfactual (in which we were not producing ethanol). As you know, of course, this argument does not necessarily follow. It is a common tool of persuasion to state that action X has not reversed the trend of function Y and therefore that action X cannot have had any effect on function Y. Just watch politicians for a few minutes :) I fear that readers may think that you are using that tool to persuade toward your position rather than simply reporting the facts objectively, as you intend. It seems to me that if you want to avoid being accused of bias, you need to be careful in avoiding these kinds of potential traps.

I don’t personally find your reference to special pleading to be very compelling in this case, because any effect of ethanol so far may be modest relative to the noise in the graph.

I will also note that, looking at the graph you linked, there is a slight fall-off from the linear gas demand trend in the last few years. If you fit a line up to 1999 – about the time the ethanol ramp up began - the extrapolated prediction would be above the actual data. You can see this clearly just putting a pencil over it. This really is the appropriate way to fit the data in this case. Fitting a line to the entire data set visually masks any potential effect. It seems possible that the real net ethanol BTU contributions could account for that pattern (if one were willing to assume an underlying linear BTU demand increase model), though I agree that the effect may not be practically significant, may just be noise, and would not prove anything.

By the way, I’m not sure the linear gas demand fit through 2006 would survive a test for randomness of residuals, though I’d have to see the actual data to know for sure. Also, why stop at 1991? Is the trend historically linear going further back? Is there strong a priori reason to expect a linear relationship?

Please note that I am no fan of corn ethanol.

You note that ethanol has not changed the oil consumption trend noticeably.

Gasoline consumption trend. The oil trend is very noisy, and appears to be cyclical. What I am saying is that the claims of oil displacement aren't supportable.

I don’t personally find your reference to special pleading to be very compelling in this case, because any effect of ethanol so far may be modest relative to the noise in the graph.

Then you support my point that the claims of oil displacement are not supported.

I will also note that, looking at the graph you linked, there is a slight fall-off from the linear gas demand trend in the last few years.

In the past 2 years, coincident with a sharp run-up in gasoline prices.

Also, why stop at 1991?

I would have to go back to the original, but I think there were some very erratic years before 1991. There was a nice, smooth growth trend for 10 years prior to the rapid ethanol escalation that started in 2000.

>Then you support my point that the claims of oil displacement are not supported.

Well, I never disagreed that the claims are overstated. Your points there are overwhelmingly clear. My point was that the tone of your post implied, to me at least, that you think the data support zero displacement impact, and that that pattern will continue in the future. Maybe you didn’t mean to imply that, and if so in my opinion your case would have more credence if you acknowledge the possibility of some impact, with the amount not confidently quantifiable using the data fitting approach that you reference.

>In the past 2 years, coincident with a sharp run-up in gasoline prices.

>I would have to go back to the original, but I think there were some very erratic years before 1991. There >was a nice, smooth growth trend for 10 years prior to the rapid ethanol escalation that started in 2000.

Above you acknowledge twice – with specific examples - that we don’t have any strong reason to believe the gasoline demand trend to always be linear. As such, it is not very persuasive in my opinion to point out that the trend has been quasi-linear lately. The limited data range on that graph might make one suspicious of cherry-picking to make a point, even though that is not your intent.

If you fit a line up to 1999 and then extrapolate, the divergence from linearity actually begins in 2000, at least in my attempt to translate the graph points into numbers. The predicted value for 2006 is then about 142, whereas the actual demand was about 138. I am by NOT suggesting that that fact proves an ethanol displacement effect by any means, but it does show that the data and the fit are ambiguous and don’t really help your argument (in my opinion).

Above you acknowledge twice – with specific examples - that we don’t have any strong reason to believe the gasoline demand trend to always be linear.

What we do know is that it was linear immediately before the ethanol rampup, and continued to be linear immediately afterward. In other words, there is no obvious impact from ethanol. Over a longer term, other factors (recessions, for example) may come into play and screw up any linearity.

You are correct that there is no a priori reason to suspect that gasoline growth would be linear. It just so happened that it was right before and right after the ethanol escalation. Proponents then have to resort to special pleading that the curve might have looked differently had ethanol made a substantial contribution. I think that's a weak point. My point is simply that there is no obvious impact.

Sorry to pester but I have one more question:

Above your gasoline demand graph, you noted that the numbers were corrected for contained ethanol. Can’t you just estimate ethanol displacement of gasoline in BTU in, say, 2006, by taking the total ethanol BTU content in motor fuel in that year and subtracting reasonable upper and lower bounds for the oil BTU content that went into making that ethanol? Assuming constant pricing in this context and the classical supply/demand model, those upper and lower bounds ARE the bounds for gasoline import BTUs displaced by ethanol. That is, those upper and lower bounds correspond to the extra gasoline that would have been imported had we not produced the ethanol. No need to try to interpret fits of lines to demand history graphs.

This seems too simple, though, so I assume I must be mistaken…

Can’t you just estimate ethanol displacement of gasoline in BTU in, say, 2006, by taking the total ethanol BTU content in motor fuel in that year and subtracting reasonable upper and lower bounds for the oil BTU content that went into making that ethanol?

Not sure I understand your question, but here's what I did and why. I also graphed the gasoline demand trend separately before and after 2000. The slopes were the same, which is what one would expect had ethanol never entered the fuel supply chain. Yet it did. But I don't have to estimate the BTU displacement by subtracting out the oil inputs, because nobody really knows what they are. So, I looked at growth trends before and after ethanol escalation. The "after" curve was total gasoline supplied minus the total ethanol (domestic and imports). This is favorable for ethanol, since I didn't subtract out the petroleum inputs, but I don't think there is a more accurate way of doing that analysis.

In your graph you should, IMO, plot ethanol and gasoline on the same scale, and in BTU instead of gallons. You can still start both curves at the same point, as in the current graph. This would make it obvious that the ethanol BTU ramp-up has not yet reached the point where it would be expected to have much noticeable impact on the gasoline demand curve. You could also plot the erroneous 170 million barrel oil displacement claim for 2006 on the same graph. One beautiful, properly scaled, and non-misleading graph then becomes the centerpiece reference for your entire post. The whole point of a graph, of course, is to visually represent the underlying patterns, including the relative scales, to make it easier to understand the data. You current graph is misleading in this respect.

I stand by my point that your graph is not informative. If the (ethanol BTU minus oil BTU used to produced it) value is impossible to compute, then I conclude that we just don't have any idea what the net displacement might be (other than an upper bound based purely on ethanol BTU).

Hi Robert,

Thanks again for sharing.

I wonder what you think about findrbob's suggestion. Is this something that would work for you?

The reason I wonder is...it did strike me (in the position of the naive reader)...when you say that their first claim is "false" - that there was something a little bit off on the logic side of it. Just as it reads.

"Ethanol reduces dependence on foreign oil." - "False."

The "false" seems not exactly quite accurate, in that I could take *their* statement to mean "Ethanol reduces dependence - it would be even higher without the ethanol".
Or, "Ethanol reduces dependence - by a teensy, bitsy bit. Hope you realize every bit counts."

In other words, it seems to me that the construction of their claim assumes a hypothetical. That's how I read it.

So, to say their claim is "false", to me (IMHO) kind of distracts from what I understand your main points to be.

So, your references to the graphs and such - well, to the naive reader, she says "Well, hmnnn...no telling what the graph would look like without the ethanol." But actually, the naive reader glosses over the graphs.

It seems to me that it might be better to cover Gail's point below, Rune's (which seems to me to encompass several excellent points, what did you think?)

In any case, I understand (perhaps I'm mistaken) your main argument(s) to be:

1) Demand/consumption has only risen since the introduction of ethanol and continues to do so.
2) US is still dependent on foreign oil.
3) To tout ethanol as a solution to imports is misleading. The number one way to address imports has to be conservation.

And perhaps go on from there.

Yes?

I'll go ahead and (stick my neck out to) post this, as I have to see your original again in order to refer to it. (Plus, I probably should re-read it.) Anyway, I'm just wanting to be helpful here...apologies in advance it's not.

Before completely rejecting ethanol consider how the whole process could be made more energy and GHG efficient. If the use of anhydrous ammonia and irrigation can be reduced or eliminated then energy inputs on the farm can be reduced significantly. On the distillery end fossil fuel inputs could be eliminated simply by burning the cellulose and lignin parts of the corn kernel according to one Iowa engineer. What we have now is a process that puts the dollar factor ahead of energy eficiency factors.
Biofuels alone cannot replace gasoline but ethanol and biodiesel could replace diesel fuel with substantial environmental advantages. Electricity is the land transportation fuel of the 21st century. The problem is replacing the 239,000,000 cars we now have. This will take decades and something needs to go in those gas tanks in the meantime.

On the distillery end fossil fuel inputs could be eliminated simply by burning the cellulose and lignin parts of the corn kernel according to one Iowa engineer.

This would not only sacrifice the co-product credits assumed for the EROEI of ethanol, it would eliminate the potential for future yield increases from conversion of the non-starch matter.

Too many of these schemes work at cross-purposes to each other.

The problem is replacing the 239,000,000 cars we now have. This will take decades and something needs to go in those gas tanks in the meantime.

As mentioned elsewhere, new light-duty vehicles form about 5.9% of the fleet each year.  Here's my take on how quickly various technologies could cut liquid-fuel demand:

Technology Relative
fuel cons.
Annual rate
of decline
Diesel 0.67 2.0%
PHEV 0.2-0.5 3.0-4.7%
EV 0 5.9%

If we can use these technologies to stay ahead of the petroleum depletion curve, we don't need any substitute fuels at all.

A big "if"...assuming we still have another 5-7 years of relatively flat global production, and then an initial gentle rate of decline of ~2%, increasing to around 5% by 2020, AND assuming there is a big change in consumer attitudes towards smaller cars, then yes, in principle it could happen.
But your 5.9% new light-duty vehicles a year sounds misleading to me: how many of the miles travelled in these new vehicles actually displace miles travelled in large, less-economical vehicles, for a start? And isn't it currently swamped by the still strong (if slowing) sales for ever-larger cars and trucks, and the still growing total population of vehicle-drivers?

Realistically, the solution has to involve getting people out of cars and on to alternative means of travel. It's better for the environment, better for safety, better for personal health, better for the aging road infrastructure and much much better for reducing oil dependence.

wiz -- Many many projects are underway to come out soon.

engineerpoet -- I'm using 2-axle 6-wheel vehicles at about 3.5 times the gallons of the average auto, and 5-axle 18-wheel vehicles at about 20.1 times the gallons of the average auto (avg auto 750 gallons per year). I don't have a good estimate on buses (there are about 800,000 out there, IC Corp makes 60% per year, and they have a hybrid-retro fit under trial to increase fuel mileage by 70% to 100%). Is the table here useful?:

http://www.ieahev.org/evs_hevs_count.html

Tell that to memmel, who thinks exports will be down 75% by 2010! Now that's about as believable as no peak until 2040, but it seems there's little doubt supply is not going to match projected demand, even just based on the U.S. population increase (not to mention increasing demand in China and India). In that sense, generally rising oil prices appear to be a given, but what I can see is a lack of a clear, reliable market signal of the need for more efficient vehicles: gasoline is still far too cheap, and auto-manufactures (especially American ones) still seem to genuinely believe they are better off concentrating on selling large, gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks. By the time it becomes obvious that truly high oil prices - $150/B, $200/B - are here to stay, it's almost certainly going to be too late to effect a smooth transition to smaller vehicles, hence genuine shortages and a real economic shock look like a pretty safe bet to me. Which, if it economic fall-out can be moderately well contained, may not be entirely a bad thing, from a long-term global perspective. Americans, especially the SUV-driving ones, will see it rather differently of course.

Rather than debating with memmel or you about exports, let me put this another way. I believe (as the result of extensive research) that credible products allowing for a transition to electric vehicles will be appearing in a short while. While this will not immediately solve the problem, it makes for an interesting negotiation tool -- we in the US will not be dependent on oil forever, and we will certainly remember the behavior of our energy trading partners after this transition is complete. OPEC, do you feel lucky?

the US will not be dependent on oil forever

That is most certainly true. It is also true of every nation on earth and, so, is meaningless. What is crucial is how the transition is made and what kind of society emerges from the transition. I have a feeling that many make the assumption that the new society will be more or less the same as the current one, only using a new (presumably growing) energy source.

Personally, I think that is a huge assumption and most certainly likely to be wrong (hint: finite resources).

Let me present it this way -- the countries that have oil don't really have much else. They will pump up that oil and trade it for Mercedes Benzes, Plasma TVs, chocolate truffles, satellite tv service, jets, wine, etc. So we (and not parts of world at the periphery of the oil supply chain) will continue to get oil as we work to capture the wind, wave, and solar energy sources -- which are apparently so large that they will provide many many multiples of the energy required to live quite nicely. I grant that this may be a bit bumpy.

Look at the places which are currently experiencing fuel shortages -- what do they have that Saudi, Russia, Iran, Canada want?

Energy sources require other resources to be able to harness them. Regardless of the depletion of other resources that we use with such abandon, energy problems alone will mean that the future will most certainly not be like the past. Add in the other resource and environmental problems we face (like topsoil, fresh water, climate change) and the certainty increases. We really need to get past the assumption that the future can always be much as it is now. If we don't get to sustainability in an orderly transition, expect more than "a bit bumpy". Unsustainable societies and economies can't survive, by definition.

I'll just go back to my original argument then.

Hybrid Truck Pilot Program says diesel hybrids use 40-60% less fuel
(August 9, 2007)
Hybrid technology to be marketed starting next year by Eaton Corp. will provide up to 60 percent better fuel economy for the trucks that use it, cut their idling time by up to 87 percent, cut fuel emissions and reduce noise, the company says.

Eaton Corp. is taking its diesel-electric hybrid technology for delivery trucks out of a research phase and into commercial production, the industrial parts maker said Thursday.

The announcement follows more than four years of development and two million miles of successful field-testing in North America, Europe and Asia.

The company plans to produce several hundred hybrid power systems in 2007, said Kevin Beaty, manager of Eaton's Hybrid Power Systems business unit. Eaton also plans to ramp-up production capacity over the next three years.

More than 220 hybrid-powered vehicles with Eaton's technology systems have been produced for testing and evaluation in delivery vans, medium-duty delivery trucks, beverage haulers, city buses and utility repair trucks.

Fleet customers for Eaton hybrid power have so far included FedEx Corp., UPS Inc., The Coca-Cola Co., Pepsico Inc. and public utility fleets.

I don't think people in TOD are aware of how fast things are going to change.

I'm not sure what the point of your post is. What will change fast? A switch to more efficient vehicles that, by the way, still deplete finite resources?

No-one knows how fast things are going to change but one thing is certain, a society/economy that uses resources more quickly than they can be renewed, cannot survive. It really doesn't matter how efficient we become, or how rapidly our efficiency in the use of finite resources increases, if the sustainability requirements are not met. The "best" any of us can hope for (if maintaining current society is a goal) is that some future generation has to deal with the consequences, not us.

Most of the depletion curves show about 2% per year for the next 5 years. That's a lot of time to switch when the solutions already exist to create hybrid and battery electric vehicles -- which will run off coal and nukes (until they run off solar, wind, and wave energy).

The people who say that we don't have solutions are wrong. The only debate now will be how quickly those solutions will be implemented.

Are you saying that electric cars don't use finite resources and that powering them will never use finite or renewable resources beyond their renewal rates? If we reach some stable economic situation you may be right. I'd bet that such a state is well below the current state, in economic terms, and from that point there will be no further growth. That means that our current way of life cannot continue.

I don't know how anyone can think economic growth, a consumptive lifestyle and the profit motive can continue indefinitely without severe consequences. If they do, I'd love to read some rationale behind such a view. And this still ignores climate change, topsoil depletion, fresh water access and species extinction.

If we have reached peak now, we have no time at all to even consider a change of energy sources and vehicle technologies. Changing to a different infrastructure takes energy. If we're already in decline, that energy won't even be available for such a change, regardless of whether your envisaged society is sustainable or not.

There are some resources that we can essentially never run out of.  Among the chemical elements, just about anything derived from the atmosphere or seawater falls into this category.  These include

  • Sodium
  • Chlorine
  • Magnesium
  • Nitrogen
  • Manganese (sea-floor nodules)
  • Carbon
  • Hydrogen
  • Oxygen
  • Lithium
  • Phosphorus

It may be easier to derive some of these from limited terrestrial supplies at the moment, but when manganese nodules and phosphate rock are being laid down right now in some parts of the world, it's hard to argue that we can't learn the same trick.

Plastics are largely CHON+Cl+Fl+S.  One lithium-ion chemistry uses a manganese oxide electrode.  When nature is laying down manganese for you and most of the rest is lithium, carbon and the like, and plastics may serve for the case and possibly even for the connections, the scarcity scenarios recede a long, long way.

Well, I don't know if we can learn that. I realise that there are some resources we are unlikely ever to run out of but isn't this largely irrelevant? Are you suggesting that our current lifestyles (and the lifestyles aspired to by some other significant populations) can be maintained by clever technologies and smart resource use, essentially for ever? If you can't see it continuing for ever, what makes you believe that it can continue for far enough into the future that its demise is not worth worrying about for a few more generations?

Let me make something clear:  elements of our current lifestyle which depend upon liquid fuels are going to become too expensive to maintain in the relatively near future.  However, technological society and even personal transport has so many possibilities (and technology keeps developing more) that I can't see them ending.

We're now seeing advances like graphene paper for ultra-strong structures and organic PV for energy production.  We may soon be in a position to essentially grow anything we need, and the lifespan of technological society will become on the order of forests (hundreds of millions of years and counting).

It would be great if you were right, E-P. However, I think society will have to figure out a way to live without growth, for this technological future to be secured. That is one hell of a trick to pull off. If we don't pull it off, society will likely be too unstable and too localised to support large scale technologies (in my view).

Another point that your post illustrates is the belief that all problems can be solved. The graphene paper looks fairly useless for any purpose that involves water immersion, high humidity or rain. Of course, the scientists know about that and are seeking ways to replace water in the fabrication process. It's assumed that the problem will be solved and there is even a projected timescale for commercial use of the technology - 5 years. This is a projection without knowing the solution to the existing problems. Optimism alone can never solve problems.

Without growth?  Humanity currently uses about 400 quads/year of energy.  If organic PV can yield 10% efficiency from 1% of the sunlight hitting the atmosphere, that's about 5200 quads/year or 13 times what we use now.  If we can boost efficiency to 40%, that goes up to 52 times.  Current US energy consumption is about 0.3 quads/million population; 5200 quads would supply about 0.85 quads/million for 6 billion people, or nearly 3x current US per-capita consumption.  On top of that, the PV would yield electricity (no conversion losses).

There's plenty of room for growth in energy use (and lots of possibilities for expanding the benefit per unit of energy).  The only real problem is if human population doesn't stop increasing.

Of course, we have to get through the current bottleneck first, but after that it looks like clear sailing.

how many of the miles travelled in these new vehicles actually displace miles travelled in large, less-economical vehicles, for a start?

I don't think we'll know until it happens.  What we do know:

  • Newer vehicles get driven more than older vehicles, so my table may be pessimistic.
  • The US public does sometimes respond to fuel prices with no change in the fleet, by e.g. commuting in the beater econobox instead of the truck, as they did after the 2005 hurricanes.

A lot of this depends on what comes from the bully pulpit.  If we had a president who would lead instead of just promoting the oil industry, we might know already.

There was a debate yesterday on CNBC between Jeff Goodell, Larry Kudlow and Lou Ann Hammond:

video

wow - I was impressed by Jeff Goodell -very articulate and knew his facts. Kudlow seemed to get it, but still is in the camp that there IS a replacement for oil.

I have been prepping him, man. :-)

Jeff and I have exchanged 30 or 40 e-mails about this stuff. He is a very quick study; asked very intelligent questions.

By the way, where do you think he got that "recycled natural gas" quote? I was hoping he would use my "cellulosic is like traveling to Mars." He did in the article, but on CNBC he just said that it's not ready for prime time.

Kudlow is a cocaine-addled 'minionist moron.

Let's keep things in historical perspective. In the US, politicans and ethanol go WAY back. They have ALWAYS used ethanol as a ploy to win votes. The only difference is that whereas in former times the ethanol came in a bottle and went into voter's stomachs, now it comes in service station pump and goes into an automobile gas tank. Other than that relatively trivial difference, things haven't changed all that much over the years (except for that little experiment with Prohibition).

Robert,

Thank you for your contribution. Excellent as always. You make the point that the BTU content is significantly less. Previously we have seen numbers for the EROEI which show that where Oil Production may take anywhere from 5 to 100 barrels produced per barrel consumed, when the EROEI is determined was that using barrels of oil or barrels equivalent? If a barrel of oil produces 1.5 barrels of ethanol and then the energy content of the ethanol is substantially lower...

So besides the point that the energy content is less, we also have an increase in demand to account for production required components of the energy. A ramp up to increase production (gross) by a 116 million barrels of ethanol would have an substantial increase in consumption needed for the production, so the net production would be substantially less than the 116 Million, and then the energy net on what is left would be reduced even further, if I understand this correctly. Unless the portion needed to promote the production is already taken into account by your numbers. could you kindly confirm if this is correct?

Respectfully,

EJ

A ramp up to increase production (gross) by a 116 million barrels of ethanol would have an substantial increase in consumption needed for the production, so the net production would be substantially less than the 116 Million, and then the energy net on what is left would be reduced even further, if I understand this correctly.

You are correct. What I have supplied is the gross, which is conservative. To be accurate, you need to subtract out the petroleum inputs, but then you will never get agreement on them. So, I just pointed out that they haven't been subtracted out.

Well beyond the comprehension or concern of the members of Congress is the simple science fact of the alternative fuel EROEI scale for oil replacement. If you look at just how much more alternative fuel must be made to net us the energy that oil is giving us, you get this:

Most sources give an EROEI for corn ethanol at around 1.3 with even its advocates rarely claiming more than 2.0 and detractors claiming it at 1.0 or worse. At face value, you'd think that an EROEI of 1.3, a 30% return on energy invested, would be worthwhile. But it actually works out that you have to make over 23 times the ethanol barrels by BTU content (38 times the physical barrels) more than our oil usage to replace our oil usage. It's WORTHLESS in replacing our oil usage. Considering that the energy content of a barrel of ethanol is a little more than half that for a barrel of oil, and that about 70% of oil is burned in mobile fuel tanks, the world would have to produce about 2275 million barrels of ethanol per day to replace our 60 million barrel/day auto/oil habit. We could all starve to death and it wouldn't make a dent in this use of corn. Anything that has an EROEI of 2 or less isn't going to make any difference. This is borne out by the gasoline production vs ethanol production chart. It shows no impact being imposed on gasoline production by ramping up ethanol production. This is exactly what you would expect to see if it's EROEI was 1.0 and why corn ethanol is a dangerous waste of precious time and money. A copy of the above chart should be taped to the forehead of every congressman in the U.S.A.

How about a t shirt? Or at least a coffee mug. Yeh, that's the ticket. Come up with 536 mugs and send them to congress and Bush. I think your chart is the most clear demonstration I have seen yet, at least in graphic form, that shows how clearly absurd ethanol is.

Cool graph.
Its slightly more nuanced than that. IF we had unlimited feedstock for steaming the ethanol solution and/or IF non-energy inputs for corn-ethanol were minimal, the fact that the energy gain is smaller isn't a deal breaker - we could in fact be changing very low quality abundant BTUs and upgrading them to gasohol. However, the specifics in the ethanol situation are anything but- the non-energy inputs are large, and natural gas is potentially more limited (in North America) than oil. If you use coal, then you lose ground on the environment.

In sum, a low EROI doesn't necessarily deal a death blow to an alternative fuel - but it does when the other inputs (land, water, soil, area, time, volatility, nat gas, etc.)are very high as well.

And cellulosic is worse!! The energy return MAY be higher, someday in the future - but even if it is (I don't see how given that the ethanol solution starts at 4%!!!). They still will have large non-energy inputs that will require changes (big ones) in societal infrastructure. Everyone counting on cellulosic or other ethanol to even make a dent in our energy problem is going to be very upset in a few years.

The real problem, as Im coming to understand is the internal combustion engine...That sucker wastes alot of energy. If we want to reduce energy dependence, lets do away with 1/2 our cars, or devise some new way of getting around that doesnt waste 90% plus of the energy (low efficiency, plus huge amount of weight thats not needed to get us from A to B). We're really using most of that energy a)because we can and b) because it's fun, and freedom feels good.
Rant over..;)

Nate,

How do you think this process will work?

They have a permit to start a plant in Georgia now.

Chris

I think, without knowing details, that waste into snygas definitely will work, be profitable and fill local niches. We should use all of our waste effectively.

However, society as a whole gets an energy gain, (or the amount of energy able to do surplus work after whats needed for the energy companies and infrastructure is subtracted), from the EROI TIMES the SCALE of a technology. The EROI of my root vegetables is 40-1 or so - but I can't scale that beyond my yard. Similarly the amount of biogas that company in Georgia will produce will be tiny in a country where each of us uses 57 barrel of oil equivs of oil, nat gas and coal each year - 700 years of energy slaves.

Some of these renewable energy options are great! But only locally or if we had less people OR if we change our fixed infrastructure. The latter is our best hope, but most difficult to tackle.

They are taking this a little further. They are making ethanol.

Chris

We should use all of our waste effectively

I'm not sure what should really be regarded as "waste", but is turning that waste into liquid fuel to propel personal transport or vacationing air travellers an effective use of the waste? Wouldn't it be more effective returning it to our soils?

The real problem, as Im coming to understand is the internal combustion engine...

That understanding is the key.

Excellent graph. Tar sands are going to suffer a similar fate. Especially once the abundant natural gas runs out and they must liquefy to import.

The main counter argument is that Coal and Natural Gas are being substituted for gasoline, not imported oil, so EROI does not matter. But NG is a fine motor fuel itself.

I could see some argument that Ethanol was a politically acceptable form of coal-to-liquids, but only 4 plants out of 100 are coal fired.
http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2006/05/26/unethacoal/

Since NG is in decline, this makes ethanol a suicide move. These plants will have to convert after the next cold winter, or go the way of the plastics industry. In any case, it will just make the US dependent on imported NG.

All taken together it is my view Ethanol was a political play. The red states were rewarded for supporting Bush by a multi-billion dollar pay back. Since the ethanol lobby now has billions of dollars, it is self supporting. And has made common cause with the Automobile industry (who runs those yellow is the new green ads) and argues that CAFE standards should not be put in place, but instead alternate fuel choices supported. If I remember correctly, California fought against the use of ethanol, as they had an MBTE replacement that was cleaner burning.

Jared Diamond points out in "Collapse", that the lust for power has often been a cause of disastrous decision making. Americans would not seem to be immune.

Jon Freise

Analyze Not Fantasize -D. Meadows

But it actually works out that you have to make over 23 times the ethanol barrels by BTU content (38 times the physical barrels) more than our oil usage to replace our oil usage

I'm having trouble understanding your vertical axis, one barrel of ethanol contains 55% of the BTU content of 1 barrel of crude oil so you need around 2 barrels of ethanol to replace 1 barrel of crude oil.

Hi NETFIND,

I can understand the graph but I don't understand how you get the values. For example how do you get the value 23 barrels for an EROEI of 1.3?

I guess I'm asking what inputs and calculations are you making? You say "it actually works out" how did you work it out?

Please can you explain it simply, so I can use your arguments to persuade a politician how futile bio fuels are.

Thanks for any help,

Xeroid.

To compare an all ethanol economy to an all oil economy is a really messy opening of a can of hyperactive worms, and maybe I'm not doing it the most fair way. But to visualize the calculation of the oil displacement chart above, xeroid, you could do a thought experiment. Imagine that you are on the moon, and all you have there is one barrel of ethanol and one barrel of oil. Along with the barrel of ethanol is the farm equipment, distillery, and the whole mechanism for making ethanol. And along with the barrel of oil is a drilling rig, refinery, and the complete mechanism for making oil refined gasoline. You are going to have a contest between the two barrels (which are oil energy equivalent barrels, barrels of BTUs). An impartial referee (not Senator Grassley) will record how much of each substance is burned in the contest. The barrel of oil goes first and is burned, and with an EROEI of 8, immediately puts 8 barrels on the finish line and taunts the barrel of ethanol challenging it to do the same thing. So the barrel of ethanol is burned and alas, only 1.3 barrels is made. To offer more energy, the ethanol crew can't find any laying around on the moonscape, they can't use the moon's abundant solar or any of that neat oil stuff from the enemy camp. All they can do is run the 1.3 barrels they have just made through their ethanol making mechanism. If they do that, they get 1.7 barrels. But now they've logged 1 + 1.3 barrels burned. But 1.7 still isn't 8, so they must use up all of the 1.7 barrels, and this gets them 2.2 barrels. But another 1.7 barrels has been burned. By the time you clear the 8 barrels, you have over 23 barrels of ethanol used whereas with the oil, it only took one barrel. To displace one barrel of oil, 23 barrels of ethanol must be made. That seems weird, but the contest didn't start out by cheating with 6.15 barrels of ethanol up against one barrel of oil so that you just get to apply the 1.3 EROEI to the 6.15 to get the 8 barrels. Ethanol doesn't come from the moon gods (or earth gods), it must be made from more ethanol if we are to compare an all ethanol economy to the high EROEI oil economy we have now. If you're just a little off on a heavily subsidized biofuel EROEI, and you actually have say 1.03 instead of 1.5, you could make a gazillion barrels a day and maybe displace one thimblefull of oil. And at 1.00 you can make all you want and it will displace no oil at all (the curve goes to infinity at 1.0) thus illustrating the danger of messing around with low EROEI oil replacements at all, especially since the U.S. Congress is making no attempt to come to grips with the EROEI issue at all. The fact that the U.S. gasoline curves show zero impact from the sharp ramping up of U.S. ethanol production suggests that the real EROEI of our corn ethanol is dangerously close to one even - a money and time pit we can not afford.

The vertical axis is barrels of oil equivalent (barrels of BTUs). It shows how many boe of ethanol or any fuel must be used with its lower rate of return to gain the same # of barrels as 1 barrel of oil or any fuel with an EROEI of 8. To get how many physical barrels are used, you apply the 55% factor. (I used 60% in the above example).

I believe that the corn would have been grown even without the ethanol industry or more realisticly, other crops would have been grown.
So the energy used for fertilizer and irrigation would have been used anyway. The only wasted energy is the energy used in the process of making the ethanol.
If we don't count the energy use in making the corn I believe the EROEI for ethanol will look a lot better.
( might even be positive :-) )
Corn might need more irrigation, but I will try to limit the scope of this post.

My point is just that when they state that 11 Billion is saved "from being sent to foreign and often hostile countries" they need to make it clear that it is not a saving for the US, as they have probably missed AT LEAST 11 billion in exports of corn and other grains.

I first heard this onesided view of ethanol in Bartlets presentation to congres, when pro ethanol representatives kept stating that the US daily used 20 billion on importing oil. They tried to present the ethanol as being a savior of the US trade deficit and repeating "TWENTY BILLION A DAY" would make you feel like Ethanol was a savior of the trade balance. But they completly missed to mention the loss of exports when using corn. Or to mention that all the ethanol would only replace a tiny share of the imports.

I dont believe this ethanol industry will do ANYTHING to help the US trade deficit.

You might reduce OPEC revenue with those 64 million BOE, or approx 4 billion USD, but at what cost?

Corn price up 70% paid by consumers! Dont even dare to calculate the burden they have put on consumers.
A 70% increase to the cost of ALL corn. How many billions is that, paid by consumers? 30 billion?
I wont even count the priceincrease of ALL other grain but I believe this would be a few billion too.

My point is that foodprices are very inelastic, and when you remove just a few percentage of the food crop (less than 10?) the remaining 90% of food will rise massively.

THIS IS THE REAL COST OF ETHANOL

The fact that the farmers will benefit greatly really just show how this is just a tax/subsidy.

On a countrywide scale the fact that consumers of food (everybody) will pay more and the farmers will recieve more is not a net cost.

The real looser in this game is Mexico, as they are the ones who need to find corn elsewhere.

Making Ethanol is just a way of paying 200$ for a non-midle-east barrel of oil

Rune

Being from Denmark it is hard to be against global warming :-)

Being from Denmark it is hard to be against global warming :-)

Until the Atlantic Conveyor shuts down and you freeze to death.... but hey, lets ignore that, its scary.

Do I really need to say that it was meant as a joke?

How could politicians run on a serious long term program addressing energy use, and an unpopular one at that (less consumption), on such a short term elective cycle? Besides the obvious cynicism (and often pure ignorance) permeating politics, I am sure a number of politicians are aware but fear losing ground on such a difficult issue, so they resort to make-believe demagogic solutions, to be addressed later.
Car use, and truck transportation are the main obstacles for any efficiency since such an abundance of fossil energy has allowed societies incredible mobility and complex infrastructures depending on an increasing flow of this finite energy.
Getting some form of public transportation, electric or otherwise, on a large scale working in the US depends entirely on land-use reform. I don't see servicing the suburbs and the last exurbanization trend being easy or even feasible. Land-use reforms could attempt to cluster populations in villages, towns and small cities and use arable land for farming, as locally as possible. But this kind of solution runs in the face of American individualistic values for now and would be totally unpopular… But yes, IMHO land-use determines how we use energy (and how much).

And I forgot to mention, if I understood correctly one of Robert's arguments is that any increase in energy flow, green, yellow or otherwise, has the immediate effect to "grow" the way we use energy now. It's akin to the enormous progress made in housing insulation after the oil shocks of the '70, it only has allowed people to build bigger houses when energy prices went down.

This is exactly right. I've written before here how a 'new' high energy gain system, say 20:1 that is scalable energy-wise may have numerous other non-energy inputs that aren't as scalable (meaning on the INPUT side, there is much larger drawdown of scarce non-energy resources.)

However, say this 30:1 roughly gets split between the entrepreneur/business and the consumer. Just like a deposit in a fractional banking system of $500 where the bank can then make loans of $10,000, creating 'money' out of nothing, so too will this energy gain cycle through the economy, being spent of 'stuff', all of which has large entropic waste byproducts. Great new wind turbines mean someone is going to be buying a yacht somewhere that wasn't before, and someones gonna leave the lights on just a bit longer than necessary. What's a clever monkey to do??

110 million barrels of ethanol production per year satisfied about 5-6 days worth of oil consumption. The U.S. used about 21 million barrels per day.

There were corn riots in Mexico as half the Mexican population made an average of about $4.00 per day and lived on corn tortillas and beans.

Converting the entire U.S. grain harvest to ethanol would satisfy only 16 percent of U.S. auto fuel needs.

Converting the entire U.S. grain harvest to ethanol would satisfy only 16 percent of U.S. auto fuel needs.

They have not solved the energy crisis and have created a food crisis.

England is having one of its worse grain harvests ever as the wet weather drowned crops:

http://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/388/Weather_hits...

Floods in Pakistan and India bring losses:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=23443&Cr=flood&Cr1=

Bangladesh crops lost to flooding:

http://www.bangladeshnews.com.bd/2007/07/31/flooding-raises-fear-for-hug...

In China, half a million homes lost, a million damaged and many thousands of acres of crops destroyed:

http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/6802

Drought in the Midwest U.S.A. has cut expected grain harvests.

http://drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html

Drought in Australia devastates a nation:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=060725013330.kmmra0ek&show_artic...

"Drought in Australia devastates a nation"

Sure, some people might consider the idea of having to drink artificially recycled water "devastating", but that's purely an artifact of how overly comfortable and divorced from reality they are, and it's hardly a "nation".

The day we have to start importing food at sky-high prices, and people are dying from thirst, I'll call the drought nationally "devastating".

Do people who write headlines like that even bother to consider how half the world's population lives?

Drought in the Midwest U.S.A. has cut expected grain harvests.

That is not clear from the graph to which you linked. As for this years corn harvest, notice that Iowa and Illinois are looking pretty good, as well as Nebraska. Only Indiana (of the major corn states) is beginning to be questionable. IMO, if it were apparent that drought would significantly cut into this year's corn harvest we would have seen corn prices in the last week go up much more than the 9 cents or so that they did.

despite a rally in last 2 weeks, corn is near its lows from the year - dec basis is 3.45 after being $4.30 in June. Its wheat thats making ALL-time highs this week.

But I haven't worked through the numbers myself but I thought I'd ask a question on one point.

When used in E10 I believed that ethanol improves the burn of the gasoline, so the lower BTU per volume is offset by improved efficiency of gasoline use.

Can this make up part of the difference?

Hi Robert,

And many thanks, as always.

Just as an aside, last night I happened- (very happenstance, as I *never* watch TV!) - to see approx. 60 sec. of regular, US TV, which happened (or was it TOD-kismet?) to be a commercial (I've tried to find it on the internet, but no luck after a bit of googling.) As follows:

Shot looking toward back end (from POV of car following) of a flat-bed pickup going down the road, with bags of corn (and for some reason- was the tailgate down? I can't remember!). On the side of the road are cornfields.

The bag(s) break open, little corn kernels spill on the roadway.

The little kernels quiver, jump and then spring to life!

Where they quickly assume existence as full-blown quite large vehicles (trucks and ? SUVs?) (My memory for 60 sec. commercials is on par w. my music memory.)

Which begin to zoom down the road.

Everybody happy, is the mood. I'd have to see it again to figure out just how they convey this emotion, but they do.

Or maybe TOD members of the TV-watching public has seen this?

I saw that just last night, at Applebee's.  If it was understood to be comedy it would be one thing, but knowing that people would believe that tripe disgusted me.

Hi Engineer-Poet,

Yes, I thought it was kind of odd. Did you happen to catch the sponsor or (what's the word)- what company? Was it a GM commercial?

One of the strangest things, to me, was that the corn kernals turned into vehicles. Not (even) into *fuel* for the vehicles.

The other thing I wondered later - did they show the same scene more than once?

It seems to me like "the story line" - (bags of corn fall off truck, split open, individual kernals turn into trucks/SUVs, road fills up w. vehicles)* - was presented more than once. (But I actually could've seen it again - I was in a place w. TV running, and could have looked more than once.) I'm curious now that it's been 48 hrs.

*(and everyone is happy - except - were there even any humans pictured at all? Now I'm not sure! My impression now is that the commercial was also rather strangely devoid of humans. Did you notice that?)

re: "believe"

You know, I'm not sure that this even approaches making as much of a demand as asking the viewer to "believe". In fact, given the "framing" assumption of the medium - things can turn into other things, etc. - the audience has already bought into a particular kind of "suspension of belief".

Perhaps the point is to simply make an emotional connection between "corn kernals" and "large vehicles". That's all you have to get.

The other thing that struck me, is that each little kernal became its own giant vehicle. (Kind of funny, really - didn't even have to be fertilized, watered...)

It was a GM commercial, all right.  It extends the "Live green, go yellow" idea.

This gave me an idea for a spoof:

Scene:  Close-up de-colorized flank shot of the fender of an SUV.  The filler flap is opened, and a hand removes the gas cap.  Then a thin yellow stream (the only color in the frame) arcs from off-screen down the filler neck.  This goes on for a while, then it stops.

The camera pulls back.  A man is seen from the back, standing in front of the truck.  He reaches down in front of himself and makes hitching motions, then he replaces the gas cap and closes the filler flap.  He turns and walks away.

Another man enters the frame, gets into the driver's seat and closes the door.  There are cranking and sputtering noises, but the vehicle refuses to start.  Finally the second man gets out, slams the door, kicks it and shouts, "Damn gas-guzzler!  I'm getting an electric!" and walks away.  Pan toward a horizon of trees and grass as color seeps into the scene and writing appears on top of it:

LIVE GREEN
GO YELLOW

Maybe one of the comedy shows would be willing to do this?  It would get a lot of hits on YouTube.

This comment is not on foreign oil displacement, but it is relevant I think to the policy implications of grain ethanol for the U.S, so perhaps it might be reflected in the FAQ.

(1) Style points, as in "How does the rest of the world perceive the US?". In developing corn ethanol as a motor fuel, we have seemingly found a way to make SUV's actually run on the starvation of the foreign poor.

Any of the foreign poor who are not strict Malthusans will not appreciate that this may ultimately minimize human suffering.

Of course, it will also make beef more expensive, making Clara Peller's early '80's "where's the beef?" line into a prophetic koan. But outside the U.S, the starvation thing will resonate; particularly in Mexico as their economy largely collapses following Cantarell's failure.

(2) Medium of exchange, as in, how long will people be crazy enough to accept U.S. dollars for oil? Exportable grain totals will, due to 'export land' and 'receding horizons' reasons, decline similarly to oil. Increasingly, food, armaments, industrial raw materials and energy may be increasingly subject to what is effectively barter solely between nations which possess them. If you squint hard enough, you can see it starting already. Once we get past the point when no sane nations would export any of these basics at all except for the others, corn will probably fetch a good exchange rate for oil and ethanol may return to its traditional use as an intoxicant.

So ethanol proponents are not as truthful as RR thinks they should be. Poor baby. Why not take a look at the lies coming out of the oil industry that are chronicled here nearly every day. The exaggerations of the ethanol lobby are no worse than the "there's plenty of oil" type statements from the the likes of CERA and other representatives of big oil. Seems to me there is a double standard when this is not pointed out.

As regards the EROEI religion and the supposed scientific analysis involved, there is no end to the debate. This is because none of it is relevant to the real world where decisions are made on market prices and not some abstract construct that few, if any, understand. All EROEI does is provide an idea for those who have nothing better to do to fart around with and try to intimidate ethanol supporters. IMO the whole thing was the result of an Exxon-Mobile grant to the U. of California in an attempt to hang onto market share by providing a plausible distraction. There is big talk here at TOD and little do. At least ethanol is an attempt to do something to mitigate PO. Those who want conservation so badly should do it. And not just talk the talk but walk the walk. By that I mean not just talking about what others or the government should do, but actually doing it. Kuntsler is the prime example of this. His life style doesn't reflect the dystopian future he predicts. As near as I can tell, the alternatives to biofuels are pretty limited and impractical. Nearly all involve a large element of coercion. Market incentives are largely ignored and group think reigns supreme.

Practical, I'm not sure if there is anything I can say that would alter your viewpoint. But I will keep trying, because if you see things this way its likely others do as well.

The exaggerations of the ethanol lobby are no worse than the "there's plenty of oil" type statements from the the likes of CERA and other representatives of big oil

Fair enough, though Robert has been critical of oil companies as well - he seems to be critical of anyone who does not back statements up with facts

This is because none of it is relevant to the real world where decisions are made on market prices and not some abstract construct that few, if any, understand

.
WHAT IF the market is NOT giving us the right signals, but is pulling as much dollars out of system in the current time period, borrowing from the future so to speak, just like a horizontally drilled oil well? Clearly ecological economics has proven that the market does a terrible job of valuing externalities, indeed by a factor of trillions of dollars per year. Net energy analysis is nothing but one tool of biophysical economics that tries to value things on physical principles. Its not a panacea or answer key to our energy problems, but its like looking at 2 cars ahead in a snowstorm in Iowa instead of just the one in front.

By that I mean not just talking about what others or the government should do, but actually doing it.

I can't speak for anyone else. I quit my high paying wall st job to come back to school and study environmental science. I discovered that the biggest danger to the environment is going to be peak oil, including pressure on already strained water systems for more biofuel production. I also live on a small farm, live on 30% of my former energy footprint and grow about 25% of my own food (which I plan to increase but its not easy to do)

As near as I can tell, the alternatives to biofuels are pretty limited and impractical.

The only person who would make a quote like this would be aligned with the biofuel industry. Wind and solar generate
significantly more energy gain than biofuels. Nuclear and tidal have better potential as well. The part you are missing is opportunity cost. In a world of limits what is the best use for your farmland??? Right now it seems like its corn, because your livelihood is tied to it, but I assure you in 5 years, there will be better uses.

Good luck to you.

So ethanol proponents are not as truthful as RR thinks they should be. Poor baby.

This is a single example, and it is a gross exaggeration. Now, start to add them up, and suddenly you get a very distorted picture of what corn ethanol is doing for our energy needs. Now, with that exaggerated picture, you start making policy decisions based upon it, and a disaster ensues when people realize they have staked too much on this all working out per the exaggerations.

Those who want conservation so badly should do it. And not just talk the talk but walk the walk.

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/02/walking-talk.html

Speaking of impacts of policy decisions, this won't warm your heart:

http://www.iowacorn.org/news/news_2a.html?NEWSID=82251

On a hot and humid Iowa summer day, Governor Culver to reaffirmed his commitment to growing biofuels in Iowa through the addition of iconic gold state trooper vehicles.
[...]
“And here in Iowa, where renewable energy has transformed our state, it is only fitting that these vehicles run on clean-burning, Iowa-grown ethanol.”
[...]
Gov. Culver also announced that from this year forward all Ford Crown Victoria cars ordered for the State Patrol will be E85 compatible. That means in just three years, the entire fleet will be able to run on the 85% corn-based fuel.

One thing a governments will do, when the affects of their policies may not be freely welcomed by the market, is to direct that government's own entities to follow the policy anyway.

"Those who want conservation so badly should do it. And not just talk the talk but walk the walk."

This reminds me of the comment about a conservative that says "if you want to save the word go ahead, but leave me out of it".
as if they had no part in the process and it was not their world that was being saved.

It has its parallels in the belief that we should spend a ton of tax dollars that go to the defense contractor that he works for and we should give him vouchers to send his kids to private schools, but do not tax him. He does everything he can to reduce his tax bill, because he is a true patriotic American.

Hi practical,

re: "walk the walk". A good idea.

re: "By that I mean not just talking about what others or the government should do, but actually doing it."

Could you possibly expand on this?

Okay, well one can "do" and, presumably, (hope to) set a good example.

When it comes ot the "government should do", well how does one "actually do" that?

What do you think *should be done* and by whom should it be done?

re: "market incentives"

Can you expand on this? When you say "coercion" previously, do you mean - what, exactly? Taxation? Laws? Kind of the same way the highway infrastructure was put in place? Or what?

How do you see "market incentives" as functioning? Toward what ends? And how would or could this actually work? Do you think it's working now? Is it sufficient now?

Any news on the butanol front?

Ethanol from starchy plants has been around since the dawn of agriculture. But come on people, let's be honest and call it alcohol. Why the euphemism?

If alcohol made from starchy plants confers an energy surplus anywhere competitive with wood / coal / oil, why was there never, ever an alcohol-powered society in history? Why was over 99.9% of it consumed as entertainment? Why did everyone choose to burn wood instead?

For one thing, those starchy plants have more energy than the alcohol so produced ever could. Because alcohol is the waste product from when yeast eat starch. The yeast use most of the energy to move around and reproduce.

Anyone who wished to harness the energy of starchy plants, could have simply dried and burned the plants! The plants are a lot easier to store and transport, anyway. Alcohol requires an airtight container.

If throughout history, simply burning rice, corn, and wheat was never economic, how could it ever be more economic to burn the waste products of something that eats rice, corn, or wheat?

And, alcohol waste from yeast never reaches concentrations greater than 15%. That won't even burn! Unless you burn some other fuel to distill the alcohol out. Nobody in history ever burned wood to distill alcohol, and then used the alcohol for fuel. Because there's more energy in the wood.

The whole alcohol debate is so transparently silly. I'm tired of thinking about it. Nobody will even call it alcohol. Geez.

"America is not a young land: it is old and dirty and evil before the settlers, before the Indians. The evil is there waiting." William S. Burroughs

Great angle! I hadn't thought about it just that way. Of course, the main reason is that no other culture in history NEEDED alcohol for anything but drinking. (Actually, on the Pleistocene, and for a great % of our evolutionary ancestry, the only 'alcohol' we had was rotten fermented fruit - and it was not very potent. )

You are right, and I will twist your words a bit: if alcohol provides energy surplus, ancient cultures would have NEEDED it for war & industry. Just like they NEEDED wood, and then coal, and then oil.

Also, I remember the Wild Boyz in Africa drinking honey alcohol made by a tribe of hunter-gatherers. So I don't think it was limited to rotten fruit.

And, remember those "Pirates of the Caribbean" from recent history? They had wooden ships loaded up with beer, rum, and explosives. The rum was fuel-grade ethanol, but nobody ever, ever used it for anything except drinking entertainment. Because that's all it was good for. What has changed in the last 150 years?

What's changed is that we burn fossil fuels now. But the problem we face now is that the fossil fuels are going away. In the generations to come, how can we employ "rum" as fuel without massive fossil fuel subsidies?

We had plenty of means, motive, and opportunity 150 years ago, and never did. Because it doesn't work.

"America is not a young land: it is old and dirty and evil before the settlers, before the Indians. The evil is there waiting." William S. Burroughs

And, remember those "Pirates of the Caribbean" from recent history? They had wooden ships loaded up with beer, rum, and explosives. The rum was fuel-grade ethanol, but nobody ever, ever used it for anything except drinking entertainment. Because that's all it was good for. What has changed in the last 150 years?

In case you haven't noticed, we have cars, trucks and aircraft now. Most of our trains in the U.S. run on diesel. These transportation options require concentrated energy supplies, in order to provide the useful power and range we take for granted. Oil provides this sort of fuel. Ethanol can also do this, but, given that oil has been very cheap compared with ethanol, there has been little reason to use ethanol. Now that oil has become relatively more expensive, ethanol appears to be the next fuel of choice to many folks.

E. Swanson

Ethanol can also do this, but, given that oil has been very cheap compared with ethanol, there has been little reason to use ethanol. Now that oil has become relatively more expensive, ethanol appears to be the next fuel of choice to many folks.

bmcnett's comments are elegant and deep, some of the most incisive to appear here IMO. Read them again and think what is actually being said. There is a robust evolutionary point being made.

Frankly, I think it is also telling that no insects (that I know of) have evolved to utilize ethanol as a food or a store of energy. If it had significant utility, there have been a lot of chances for it to be evolved into living energy systems. You see huge numbers of evolved uses of cellulose and carbohydrates and fats and proteins. Ethanol is just a not-very-useful intermediate metabolite of carb metabolism that happens to have the property of running an internal combustion engine, and of getting us drunk.

Ethanol is probably an energy dead end for mass use, and kudos to bmcnett for putting this into perspective.

We had plenty of means, motive, and opportunity 150 years ago, and never did.

No we didn't have them.  The practical internal combustion engine is a bit over a century old.  Without the ICE, alcohol is good for drinking, disinfection and stove fuel for ships (you can douse an alcohol fire with water, unlike kerosene).

Henry Ford originally thought that cars would run on alcohol.  Rudolph Diesel thought engines would run on vegetable oil (he tried coal dust but couldn't make it work well; I gather he kept having coal-dust explosions).  The engine technology coincidentally arrived with a surplus of naptha as a byproduct of rock-oil production for lamp oil; the rest is history.  But investments in infrastructure and pure force of habit are nowhere near as strong as the laws of physics.

$10.0000/acre of farmland in Illinois because people are betting on ethanol production:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/us/08farmers.html

I think that if we had cellulose ethanol, E85 nationwide and the flex fuel hybrids to use it, we could reduce our oil consumption. With enough biomass to make 100 billion gallons of ethanol to replace some of the 140 billions of gasoline the U.S. uses each year, I can not see how this would NOT have an impact on oil consumption. We can do it, but are not doing it.

With enough biomass to make 100 billion gallons of ethanol...

Deserts happen when you remove biomass.

Cellulosic ethanol might have severe, unintended, consequences.

That billion ton figure came from the government and it factored in the amount of biomass that you have to leave in the field.

Hi Robert, (again)

Just a couple cents, FWIW:

re: the RFA quote:

"FACT: In 2006, the production and use of ethanol in the U.S. reduced oil imports by 170 million barrels, saving $11 billion from being sent to foreign and often hostile countries."

1) Who do you want your audience to be? I'd suggest writing your response as though you were speaking to an uninformed audience. (And, after all, considering the RFA mistakes are on this level, might as well not assume.)

So, if I was attempting to address this quote above, I'd start with the number that represents the U.S. actual oil imports in 2006, along with the dollar amount.

So, how many barrels *were* imported and how many billions *were* spent/sent? (Just to give context.)

2) One thing that strikes me as misleading (also) about the RFA quote, is that the $11B seems so high...until one compares it with say, military aid. This might be an interesting comparison.

Like, okay, we allow so many billions to be paid to foreign and "often hostile" countries. And then, on top of this, we also deliberately send them another XX billions in fighter planes, etc. etc.

3) In any case, back to the RFA quote. The reason I'd suggest starting w. a sentence or two about what the actual import numbers and amounts were, is that the naive person reading this has no feel for what the numbers represent.

So, whether it's 170M or something else, doesn't really mean much. Perhaps percentages would be meaningful, which is perhaps why the RFA doesn't use them. (But you could.)

eg. "Even if it was the case that the amount of ethanol US drivers consume did replace an equivalent amount of oil imports, this would still represent only X% of the total imports."

4) Perhaps...are you thinking to offer some speculation about why this demand/consumption graph didn't change?

Is the hype over ethanol having some psychological effect that makes it okay to consume ethanol (as fuel)? So, by consuming ethanol, one is being a responsible citizen? (This could have the paradoxical effect of increasing consumption even more?)

In other words, if you're meaning to write something up, I'd suggest start with your last paragraph, and then expand on what you mean. eg. what does "demand-side" mean? (Consumption increases, this is the problem.) etc.

Then just say X amount ethanol consumed in year Y (use 2006 as an example), for an oil equivalent of Z. But...then add on all the other points, it replaces MTBE, not gasoline, etc. or whatever.

Yes, I almost did put the number in terms of days of U.S. consumption. But that all that would click was that we were displacing 8 days of consumption with ethanol, rather than the fact that the claims weren't true.

I have gotten a lot of useful feedback on this, and I think I have a pretty good idea of where people are having trouble. You are correct; I have to write this for a layman who has no understanding of this at all.

Hi Robert,

Thanks for responding.

A detail, and again, from my humble viewpoint here, (wanting to be supportive)...(and I think I don't understand something, but given my limited time, I'll risk playing the fool, in case that's also helpful.)

re: "But that all that would click was that we were displacing 8 days of consumption with ethanol, rather than the fact that the claims weren't true."

Well, it seems, still, to me that this claim, namely "we were displacing 8 days of consumption with ethanol", cannot really be proven to be false. (Or, even demonstrated to be false.)

Can it?

I mean (as I tried to say above), given the way the claim is stated.

It ("8 days oil consumption equivalent ethanol") replaces something - yes?
The question is - well, what *does* it replace?

Well, you might want to say, "it only replaced MTBE and thus replaced no oil at all."

Or, you might be wanting to say, "consumption of gasoline (and thus oil) only increased over this period, so if you don't understand how damaging that is, that consumption keeps on rising - I have something to tell you."

(But this is slightly different than saying "8 days consumption ethanol" replaced oil imports is false - isn't it? In other words, what do you consider the negation of "8 days oil equivalent consumption ethanol" to be?

I'd say it would mean, "zero consumption ethanol took place". Or, perhaps, "X amount consumption ethanol does not replace any oil at all."

But the consumption did occur - yes?)

Or, you might be wanting to say, "Ethanol cannot be used as a substitute for gasoline at all." (But I don't think you're trying to say this, are you?

Hi again, Robert,

Thanks and I think I've figured out where the sticky point is, from my POV.

re: "Since ethanol is a gasoline replacement, this oil displacement should be most pronounced if we look at the gasoline demand curve. As ethanol has ramped up exponentially since 2000, how much gasoline has been displaced? It's not apparent that there was any displacement. As shown in the link, as ethanol has ramped up since 2000, not only has gasoline demand increased by 10 billion barrels per year, but there isn't even any obvious effect from ethanol on the gasoline growth curve. As ethanol has ramped up, we have become more dependent upon petroleum. That is not my opinion. That's what the numbers say, in black and white."

1) Yes, the numbers say "we have become more dependent"

2) re: You say, " but there isn't even any obvious effect from ethanol on the gasoline growth curve."

This - to me - is *not* the same as saying that the - (let us insert some expletives here, just to let off steam and validate your intent)- statement of the RF people is false.

What is true is to say, "This didn't cause demand to slow down one whit. It kept right on going."

However, this is *not* equivalent to saying their statement is false.

The curve could have looked abnormally steep had it not been for the ethanol.

Yes? No? If no, why not?

What I would say (trying to see if I understand the intent of what you want to convey) is:

"I, RR, when I see a graph that keeps right on climbing, I fear that the idea touted here, namely, "displacement" or "substituting ethanol for foreign oil" gives people the wrong idea. It leads them to believe we're getting a handle on the problem.

In fact, the problem is just as bad, if not worse, than before.

In fact, the problem is double worse. The consumption is increasing - nothing at all has slowed it down. And worse-to-worse, you are telling people their purchase of ethanol helps.

In fact, (and here is where I'm not sure which way you want to go - w. Gail or w. Rune, for eg.)
ethanol in 2006 only replaced MTBE - so it didn't replace any oil at all.

Or...X" whatever.

I just - the naive reader who goes with the logic sense of something - has a problem with your wanting to say their statement is false.

It seems like your assumption is: that the "gasoline growth curve" *should* reflect some change as a result of their statement.

To me, it does *not* seem to be a requirement implicated in their statement.

Their statement stands on it's own. Does this makes sense? I think this is the hang-up. "displaced or substituted" does not necessarily mean the curve *should* look any different than it does.

If you want to say "what's wrong with this statement?", then...well, I have some suggestions (as above), as do others.

Perhaps it's your assumption about the look of the curve that - while interesting, and meaningful to people who enjoy curves (:), (which apparently may not even be most of the RF folks) - I'd say it takes their argument one step further than they take it.

Thus, you're (in effect) negating something they didn't claim.

For you, in your framework, this may be too subtle a difference to be meaningful. I'm just saying, that for them...and others, the difference may distract. I'd try to be very careful.

My suggestion would be to lay out your argument from your most important point of view, first. Namely, consumption is up, this is a huge, giant problem we need to sound the alarm about.

To me the part about:
RR says "Look, here's a graph. Do you see any down blip in this graph? I don't! How much real substitution can there be, with not even a blip of downwardness!" (or whatever).

is rather (very) minor. It may reinforce your point, but it does not make your point. (That's my take on it.)

So, as a reinforcement, I would not use it as part of the logic construction of my argument.

(I'd say it's a bit of icing, not the cake.)

----------------------
Just to continue, what I think you're getting at is the misleading nature of stating large numbers with no context.
You can address this. And also, the upward, unrelenting climb of the consumption curve is also a very good contextual point. Essential.

(It's just that they are not saying anything that specifically addresses this point. So, there is not anything there for you to negate, in the sense of declaring it "false".) Declare it misleading and out of context. Declare it so misleading as to drive a person crazy who wants to see that graph blip...But I think declaring it "false" is kind of inaccurate in a way that will (or can) divert the attention of the naive reader who is desperately trying to get a handle on the situation.

Anyhow, I'm not doing this to harp. I'm trying to support your expressing exactly what it is you are wanting to say.

Maybe let me know if this makes any more sense.

Let me try to address both of your main comments here.

First, re: 8 days of oil consumption. Yes, it can be shown to be false. Easily. Because the amount of energy in those 8 days of oil consumption far exceeds the energy in the ethanol produced. The claim "170 million barrels of oil displaced" is false, given that 1). Only 116 barrels of ethanol was actually produced; 2). It takes oil to make ethanol, and the ethanol that it took to make the ethanol was not displaced, and 3). The energy in a barrel of ethanol is just over half the energy in a barrel of oil.

Regarding the gasoline graph: We could argue that it might have been a sine wave if not for ethanol. But what we do know is that the gasoline growth immediately before and immediately after ethanol ramped up looked the same. If the proponent wants to claim displacement, then they have the burden to show that gasoline demand growth would have even been higher - in the face of record prices - without the ethanol contribution.

Hi Robert,

Thanks for responding. Perhaps I can back up a bit, as I'd like to communicate my points, and don't believe I have as of yet.

1) In your post above, you say:

"Yes, I almost did put the number in terms of days of U.S. consumption. But that all that would click was that we were displacing 8 days of consumption with ethanol, rather than the fact that the claims weren't true."

When I referred to the "8 days" - I was simply taking it from what you said in your earlier post. I don't know if it's accurate or inaccurate, and it wasn't my point to try to find out. I assumed, since you said it, and the context in which you said it - that it's true. (I thought the "8 days" was something you thought accurately represented the X barrels of actual ethanol consumption. If I misunderstood this, my bad.)

So, perhaps I misunderstand what you are trying to say.

Are you trying to say that even if you convert the "barrels" displaced as given by RA to "number of days gasoline consumption" - the numbers are still wrong? (And now I've lost track as to whether you want to talk about barrels of oil consumption as days of a year's worth, or gasoline consumption for the same duration.)

Then, in that case, do you have a new and more accurate number that represents ethanol consumption in terms of "barrels of oil"?

Or, is it the case, you wish to dispute their using this type of comparison and conversion analogy in the first place?

Or, are you trying to say that the conversion cannot be calculated in the manner in which they must have done it, in order to reach the erroneus "170 barrels" they claim?

All I was trying to say is: Critique their numbers any way you want, I just thought that putting your conclusion about A) what amount of ethanol was consumed and B) What amount of oil, in a theoretical sense, this displaces - could be stated in terms that place the amount, whatever it is, in whatever terms (energy terms, whatever) in context of the total consumption picture, might be useful.

But if you don't think "barrels of oil" displaced is a useful measure, even if it's accurately calculated, then perhaps say that?

2) re: "If the proponent wants to claim displacement, then they have the burden to show that gasoline demand growth would have even been higher - in the face of record prices - without the ethanol contribution."

Well, I would disagree here, in the sense that I don't think it is necessarily the case. I don't think (though welcome logic experts chiming in) - the proponent has to show demand growth would have been higher.

The demand/(consumption) growth is what it is/(or was).

The ethanol came from somewhere. It did - or did not- displace something - ? To some degree or another. (Or to no degree?)

However, if you would like to "place a burden" on them to show this, then I would explicitly say this.

And also define the terms for a suitable answer. How could one demonstrate a hypothetical higher consumption rate than
what actually occurred? I don't see how this could be done.

So, are you basically saying that the ethanol was not consumed? Gasoline consumption went up quite smoothly and logically, just as though ethanol had not been there.

(This is a mystery. "Where is the ethanol in the consumption picture?" Is this your question?)

But...ethanol was consumed. Yes?

So, how do you account for the ethanol? (I.e., what accounting measure or analysis would you suggest? How much came into the system, how much was consumed and in what manner was it consumed?)

I am not completely following you, so let me rephrase.

170 million barrels of oil displaced was the RFA's number. That would have been 8 days of consumption. But 170 million is not accurate, therefore I did not use "8 days of consumption" in my example. I was afraid that this is the only thing that would stick in people's heads - that ethanol was now supplying 8 days of our oil demand. A supportable number is well less than 100 million barrels.

On the gasoline consumption curve, note that I don't say that there is no impact from ethanol. I ask where it is. I ask why the graph looks like it does if ethanol is displacing gasoline; i.e., there is no obvious impact. I don't think that's a disputable statement. There is no obvious impact.

What I would expect to see, as ethanol ramped up, is an inflection point downward as gasoline was displaced. After all, ethanol is a gasoline substitute, therefore if it is displacing 170 million barrels of oil it should be most obvious on the gasoline growth curve.

Hi Robert,

Thanks for coming back once again. This may be getting too late in the day for a response. I'd also like to try again, as the point I want to make is one I (apparently) haven't expressed well.

1) Thank you for the clarification that the "8 days consumption" comes from the RFA numbers, and that you dispute the RFA numbers. (Correct?)

So, RR: "A supportable number is well less than 100 million barrels."

My questions:

1. Would you share with us - what this number is, or what the range is (i.e., "less than one million, more than X"?)

2. So, is it the case that here you are saying that you *do* believe the following: (Perhaps a "yes or no" for each point would work):

--some amount of ethanol was both produced and consumed?

--One accurate and meaningful way to think about this amount of ethanol is to convert it into barrels-of-oil-equivalent. - (?)

--You agree with this way of describing the consumption, your quarrel, then, is simply that they don't carry out the conversion correctly. (?)

(Another way to ask these two questions is : Or, is it the case that you dispute doing the conversion at all?)

**(This is the tack I might think about if I were in your shoes. One possibility is to w. dispute the conversion exercise because it's so easy to get wrong.)(Or, because it's misleading out of context of total annual oil consumption.)

--So, that you, RR, would be willing - or *are* willing? - to do the same conversion exercise, it is just that you would come up with a different number, or, perhaps a range for the number. (When you do the conversion exercise, you would get it right - ?)

--Would you please, then, let us know what your numbers/range is in terms of "boe" for the ethanol consumption?

(BTW, do you dispute their original ethanol input numbers? I'd go back up to read your post again, but I can't w/out losing my page.)

2) Okay, this might be a little trickier here, but I'll try anyway.

RR says: "On the gasoline consumption curve, note that I don't say that there is no impact from ethanol. I ask where it is. I ask why the graph looks like it does if ethanol is displacing gasoline; i.e., there is no obvious impact. I don't think that's a disputable statement. There is no obvious impact."

Robert, without re-stating my previous posts, let me just say that, with my best reading, it appears to me that your first sentence of the above paragraph contradicts your final sentence of the above paragraph.

As far as I can tell, and why I was going to so much trouble to (hopefully help) - ask for clarification, is that when I read the above paragraph, just as when I read your original post, it was not clear to me what it is you are trying to say. Or rather, if you were trying to use the gasoline graph to make an argument, I'm not sure the what the argument is and, also, if the argument holds together.

"I didn't say there was no impact from ethanol."

"There is no obvious impact."

Well, it looks to me like you are saying, in a fairly definitive manner: "There is no impact."

If this is not the case, then I'd suggest coming up with a series of positve - (as in avoiding use of the negation words such as "no" or "not" or "false")- statements that you *do* believe or agree with.

Is the point you are trying to make that the impact is so small as to not be obvious? Or, are you trying to say there is no impact at all?

In my earlier posts, I phrased them as questions.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, of course. I would like you to be successful in your endeavors, and I also want it all to make sense.

An example of what I mean by this exercise might be the following:

"I, RR, believe: yes, there was some gasoline displaced by ethanol consumption, but so little as to be negligible.

I consider X boe (a number between, say 2 and ? whatever based on my calculations of the ethanol consumed in the US as being Y gallons over the year 2006) - to be a very small number.

Therefore, I take great exception to the RFA even talking about these Y gallons as though they are a solution to our problem. They are not. In fact, our consumption continues to climb and this is a serious issue, which deserves our urgent attention."

Is this (above) statement one that is congruent with what you are trying to say?

3) RR: "I ask why the graph looks like it does if ethanol is displacing gasoline; i.e., there is no obvious impact. I don't think that's a disputable statement. There is no obvious impact."

Robert, to me, it is a disputable statement.

The graph is what is is. It is (we presume) an accurate way to convey the gasoline consumption.

You are the one (in this configuration RFA v. RR (and us cheering you on)) who is claiming that the graph "should" look different.

This is a "test" that *you* are coming up with. It is not one that is necessarily a definitive test.

As far as I can see, it does not settle the issue one way or the other. For example, RFA simply comes back with a new graph that says "gasoline plus ethanol consumption - 2006, based on gallons of blend sold in the US, using X% as ethanol" or whatever. In other words, there is either a graph that in addition to gasoline, shows ethanol, that one can make from real-world data. (Yes? Or No?)

Or there is a hypothetical graph. This would be a graph that shows gasoline consumption (hypoethical) if one were to add on (hypothetical) gasoline to replace the ethanol input numbers.

Would this satify you? I would say "No." I'd also say that such a graph doesn't prove anything, so your asking for it - your "test" - also does not *prove* anything.

If the numbers are available in the real world for "gasoline plus ethanol" consumption, then why not just use those?

It is entirely within the realm of possibility that the addition of ethanol *as a gasoline substitute* merely added to the consumption of "total fuel put into cars" or (to use a different label) "gasoline plus ethanol". For which one would have a different graph, with a higher curve than this graph.

(BTW again, did they over-state their original ethanol numbers?)

(So, the more accurate, lower number - well, what is it?)

RR: "What I would expect to see, as ethanol ramped up, is an inflection point downward as gasoline was displaced. After all, ethanol is a gasoline substitute, therefore if it is displacing 170 million barrels of oil it should be most obvious on the gasoline growth curve."

Okay, once again -

is your quarrel with

A) Ethanol as a substitute? You say it is not a substitute for gasoline, it is a substitute for MTBE or something else. And/or...
B) The numbers they give as the ethanol input/consumption numbers? (the raw data, in other words?) And/or...
C) - their conversion into boe numbers? (that they simply did not do the conversion correctly?)

To me, you're using the graph to make several arguments at once.

IMVHO, it would be more clear to tease out your arguments and deal with them one by one.

If you believe they did the conversion wrong, then it's not necessary to point to the graph to show this. Is it?

And, IMVHO, the graph argument "There is no obvious impact."
is not a valid conclusion, in logic terms, based on the graph.

re: FF says "What I would expect to see, as ethanol ramped up, is an inflection point downward as gasoline was displaced."

Maybe yes, maybe no.

Or something else could be going on. (Like either: a real-world increase in the gasoline consumption rate, or perhaps that ethanol is a wash - it replaces MTBE, which doesn't show in the numbers - I don't know this, I'm just trying to run through some logical possibilities , or perhaps the ethanol addition is so terribly small that we're making a mistake in some other way.)

3) So, to ask my previous last Q again, okay, let's take your presmise that the graph *should* go down.

What do *you* make of the fact that it doesn't?

Aniya, the BOE of the produced ethanol was 64 million barrels, as indicated in the essay. But that still is not a good gauge of petroleum displacement, as 1). It doesn't count the petroleum inputs required to produce the ethanol; and 2). It also does not consider that that natural gas used to make the ethanol is a perfectly good automotive fuel (i.e., the petroleum displacement was actually based on natural gas). If you consider these two qualifiers, then you do indeed come to the conclusion that there was essentially zero BOE displacement.

On your second point, what I have in the FAQ is:

As ethanol has ramped up exponentially since 2000, how much gasoline has been displaced? It's not apparent that there was any displacement.

That last statement is linked to the graph. Again, I don't think that's disputable. But since you dispute it, then you must necessarily believe that there IS an apparent displacement. Show me. I don't mean by suggesting that one thing or another could possible explain the graph. That's not "apparent."

Bottom line on that is that there either is or is not an apparent displacement. I said there is not. If you dispute it, you have to show me that there is - not that there might be.

As far as my quarrel, the main quarrel is that 170 million or 200 or 500 billion barrels of oil displacement is a gross exaggeration - not in any way supported by the data.

Aniya, a couple of other comments, because I think I see the source of some confusion. For instance:

If the numbers are available in the real world for "gasoline plus ethanol" consumption, then why not just use those?

This, to me, indicates a profound misunderstanding of the displacement issue. For instance, assume hypothetically that there is 1 BTU of gasoline required to produce and distribute 1 BTU of ethanol. Then ethanol has displaced zero gasoline, even though ethanol was produced. A graph of gasoline plus ethanol would show some addition to gasoline supplies, but yet no displacement has taken place. That's why you don't use "gasoline plus ethanol."

That's why I think looking at the gasoline demand growth curve immediately before and after the ethanol ramp-up is important. Any petroleum displacement should be most readily apparent in the gasoline demand curve. Ethanol is, after all, a gasoline replacement. This is where you should see the concentrated impact. Do we? No. That's why I say that the impact isn't apparent. It is up to the proponent who claims that there is oil displacement to explain why gasoline demand growth has not been impacted by all of this oil displacement.

My impression is that you are failing to see that the only displacement that can occur is due to ethanol BTUs that were not originally petroleum BTUs.

Hi Robert,

Thanks. I may be limited in my responses because I'm only commenting on your post here at TOD.

re: "the only displacement that can occur is due to ethanol BTUs that were not originally petroleum BTUs."

Yes, I understand this.

re: "A graph of gasoline plus ethanol would show some addition to gasoline supplies, but yet no displacement has taken place. That's why you don't use "gasoline plus ethanol.""

Yes, of course.

I brought up the idea of "gasoline plus ethanol" only because it might show something interesting about the total consumption. If you have both sets of numbers and make two graphs.

re: "It is up to the proponent who claims that there is oil displacement to explain why gasoline demand growth has not been impacted by all of this oil displacement."

I believe this is where we possibly differ.

Let me try a slightly different tack.

We can outline the RFA argument as follows: (please correct me if I'm mistaken):

1) We note X gallons of ethanol used in the US for Y time period.

2) We do a boe conversion and note (mistakenly) Z barrels of oil this equates to.

3) We claim this replaced Z barrels of imports.

Would you say this is a rough outline of their argument?
(If not, please add on or correct me, ok?)

At which point in the argument would you like to put forth objections? This is one of my questions.

And then, further, what kind of objections do you wish to offer?

For example, do you consider it valid for them to do the conversion exercise, a mistake to come up with the numbers they did, and then...a complete error to say that this result (even if corrected) amount to "Barrels of oil imports replaced", because:

(and here I'd have to look back, sorry), but say, for example, "because...there was no total gain by the time you subtract out the energy from oil used to produce ethanol"
Or, another version of what you say above, namely,
"For instance, assume hypothetically that there is 1 BTU of gasoline required to produce and distribute 1 BTU of ethanol. Then ethanol has displaced zero gasoline, even though ethanol was produced."
And further, we need to subtract out percentage of US oil from total usage numbers. And further...(?)

Is your argument mainly one along these lines?

Question mark?

I guess what I'm trying to say is, (one way to look at this is): the RFA is putting forward a statement that makes a certain claim.

You have taken up the position of refuting their claim.

They have not volunteered themselves to be in the position to take up (refute) your claim.

You can ask them to do this, but this doesn't amount to a refutation of their claim.

If you posit that the graph they offer "has to be" or "should be" different to be in congruence with their claim, I'm saying that this does *not* directly address their claim.

It's an interesting observation. However, it's an observation, as far as I can tell, which could be explained in several different ways.

Not that those ways would be correct. However, what would the criteria be for determining which is the valid explanation?

I have difficulty with your statement - (if I understand it correctly)(If not, please correct me) - that the gasoline consumption numbers have to show a down dip in order for their claim to be valid.

No, they do not.

This does *not* mean their claim is valid. It also does not mean that your claim cannot make use of the lack of down dip to bolster your argument, once you make it. It's just that (my point is) the lack of down dip is not a valid basis for your argument. I do believe you have an argument to make. (That's why I'm here.)

Hi again, Robert,

I thought I'd reply to myself, as an edit.

Okey, dokey, looking up at your previous post, here's the essence of your argument, it looks like:

"...If you consider these two qualifiers, then you do indeed come to the conclusion that there was essentially zero BOE displacement."

To me, this is a reasonable argument - a reasonable set of objections to posit. Perhaps expand upon them. But for the purposes of "process discussion", (my efforts to engage in a conversation about "what constitutes an effective argument"), I accept these.

What I don't accept (so to speak) is that it is up to me to prove that *your* claim ("down dip is required") is invalid. I don't (or RFA doesn't) have to show this at all. What I "dispute" is not your idea that this is an interesting thing to look at. What I "dispute" is that you have the "right" within the discussion to insist that I have to justify the lack of down dip.

You might ask them how they account for it not showing up. However, if they give you an account, you have no basis from which to judge it, until you substantially raise your objections, ie., refute their argument. They way you phrased it, they could come back with a hypothetical graph, based on their claim, and this would work.

Edit: Deleted post.

Aniya, your comments have been helpful. However, at some point I must make a decision that I have addressed most concerns. I feel like I am at that point on this particular issue. In my opinion, your concern is because you have taken the phrase “no apparent displacement” and converted that into “no displacement.” In order to dispute the first statement, which you have, you have to show me on the graph where there is apparent displacement. If you can't do that, then the statement stands. And I stand by my statement that the graph shows no apparent displacement.

Regarding your interpretatio - the second statement - “no displacement.” You could dispute this any number of ways. For instance, you could suggest that the number of drivers accelerated during that time period, offsetting ethanol’s contribution. But in this case what you would have done was to offer a reason that there is no apparent displacement. You have not challenged the statement that there is no apparent displacement. It still isn’t apparent, but this is why……

My position is that it isn’t apparent, because any displacement is too small to be seen, undermining claims that 170 million barrels have been displaced. After all, shouldn’t that show up somewhere? I am challenging the RFA with that graph. Tell me why it looks like it does if 170 million barrels have been displaced. If petroleum has indeed been displaced, then that necessarily means that the gasoline growth curve would have otherwise been a lot higher without ethanol's contribution. I am looking for some reasoning. All I need do is show the graph and ask the question: "Why does it appear as it does?"

Hi Robert,

Thanks for your post. I'm happy to accept a stop on the exchange, at the same time, I disagree w. your interpretation here of my points (and apologies for not making them better to start with.)

I think part of I'm trying to say is close to the exchange you had with "Findrbob" above. It has to do with the way you preseent the argument. Whether I say "no displacement" or "no apparent displacement" in my attempt to reiterate your point for clarity is not relevent from my point of view, WRT to my objection to your "form". I'm glad you corrected me, though. (See below.)

So, I'm glad to understand, then, that it's the "degree" of displacement you're concerned with - is this correct?

My points (originally) were: to say their claim is "false" requires more explanation. Just on it's face, it isn't sufficient (as I read it) to convey what exactly you have a problem with.

I also had a problem with the logic when you place a requirement on them that is an implication you derive, rather than something that addresses their main point(s).

I say this from a "form" point of view, rather than a "content" point of view. I called it a "test" on your part. (The "should" of "the graph should look different".) To me, this is a less-than-optimal way to argue. (Can also be "unfair".)

My effort was to try to understand your rebuttal; (what it is about their argument you don't like.)

When you said, (wups I'm paraphrasing, sorry): "If their claim is true, then the graph *should* look different." We have (at least) two cases:
Case 1: It should look different if their conversion numbers (which we know now to be mistaken) are accurate or
Case 2: The graph (in your view) should look different even with *your more accurate* conversion output numbers.

re: "My position is that it isn’t apparent, because any displacement is too small to be seen, undermining claims that 170 million barrels have been displaced."

Q: If you correct their mistake, and use your number of 64 million barrels, do you have the same problem?

So, your only point in referring to the graph is that they do not do the conversion exercise correctly?

(Or is there more to your use of the graph than this?)

My suggestion, I guess, (not that you asked, but I'll offer!) is to express your rebuttal without reference to the gasoline consumption graphs, just as an exercise.

I like most of your other ideas and hope you can share them successfully.

Well, a "PS" to our mutual decision to change the subject.

This is the part of your posting that (I think) is what Findrbob referred to as "counterfactual":

RR: "It is up to the proponent who claims that there is oil displacement to explain why gasoline demand growth has not been impacted by all of this oil displacement."

All I was trying to say is that I don't think it is up to the proponent to do this. (I was also trying to go into why I have this view.)

I agree with Robert that is it up to the proponent. If someone is claiming that ethanol can make an impact on gasoline consumption, and that claim supports further production of ethanol as well as investment and subsidies for ethanol production, then such a claim should be substantiated. Don't you agree?

Hi sofistek,

Thanks. Whew. A chance to make myself look foolish still this week.

Yes, I'd agree: "...a claim that ethanol can make an impact on gasoline consumption...should be substantiated, don't you agree?"

Yes. Most definitely. However, according to RFA, they *did* substantiate it.

It is their "substantiation" argument that Robert takes issue with, and I fully support and encourage his doing so.

So, then the question becomes, how does one make the best possible case as a rebuttal against the "substantiation" they offer? Because that is the one that's out on the table.
(Right at this moment. It doesn't mean one could not start from scratch to construct one's own argument. However, that's not what Robert was doing in this section.)

Up thread, which I'll try to find without losing my place, Findrbob puts it probably better than I did, by invoking the rhetorical term counterfactual, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_conditional.

My reading of what Robert did was to:

1) Take their argument one step further than they did, and
2) Say that "If your argument is true, then there has to be a down dip/apparent displacement on the graph I've offered."

Well, actually, no there doesn't.

This way of arguing is to introduce a "should", an "if-then" that the responder (Robert) has posited. This "should"/"if-then" has it's own self-contained set of assumptions.

That's the tricky part, and why I don't think it "works" in logic terms, to do this. It's kind of turning the argument back on the original proponent.

They are saying "Ethanol displaces gasoline and here's why."

When he invokes his "if-then", Robert is, in effect saying:

"If you're premise is true, then this other thing I'm introducing into the discussion also has to be true." Well, not really - he's hijacking it, sort of. (He's introducing a premise and assuming its validity.)

Another way to say this is: Robert (when he introduces his "show me the apparent displacement" argument) is saying, in effect: "You are wrong, here is why you're wrong, and you have to prove to me that you're *not* wrong."

No, not so. At this stage of the game, it's Robert's (self-proclaimed) duty to say "why" "*they* are wrong."

I was attempting to understand exactly where he has a problem with what they said.

As far as I can tell, there are several good points to be made to answer back to their original claim.

My only caution and "advise against" was that to introduce
an "if>then" into the discussion is not exactly, well, kosher, to to speak.

It makes a great flourish, or add-on, after one is done. For example:

To lay out one's rebuttal or argument against, and then say,
"And besides that, take a look at this graph. It doesn't show any apparent inflection when we'd expect to see it. Pretty suspicious, huh?"

Or, as Robert said, he thinks the contribution of ethanol is so low as to not show up on the graph. Well, this is one argument he makes. I could also see trying to make the argument that there's no gasoline displacement at all, period. Anyway, I haven't tried to do it, but my last Q was about if he took his *more accurate* boe numbers, what happens then?
Or, maybe the entire boe conversion enterprise has a couple of problems with it? Not sure.

(I'm getting chilly out on this limb, so I'd better stop.)

I kind of got carried away trying to say this in different ways.

I hesitate to use logic terms, lacking the background, but I'd say it's *similar* to: "If p>Q, Not-Q, so not P" Well, no.
I think it's "not P> Q *or* not-Q".

Another tack altogether Robert might take would be to do a graph of gasoline consumption, alongside a graph of gasoline + ethanol consumption, (just as an illustration) and then start adjusting the ethanol graph after subtracting the energy inputs, for eg., if he posits a NG input. (The use of NG as TLF is something he'd have to lay out specifically in his rebuttal.) You could also (maybe?) do something like convert the subsidy dollars into a boe denomination and look at that. (cute.) Or, probably better, what Findr was suggestion above.

A lot of people made really good points. Mine was only trying to comment on the argument itself.

However, according to RFA, they *did* substantiate it.

No, Aniya, they made a claim. They didn’t substantiate that claim.

Consider this. Let’s say that their claim was that all oil consumption was displaced. I presume you would agree then that the gasoline demand curve would be very important to their claims. After all, if all oil has been displaced, then gasoline demand must go to zero. If I show the curve, and it does not, it is not up to me to come up with reasons for that. I have shown, despite claims that all oil was displaced, that we are still using gasoline. That is me on offense. Now, they have to defend.

However, even if they aren’t displacing all oil, but are still making claims about oil displacement, an obvious place to look is the gasoline demand curve. Producing ethanol tells you nothing about displacement, because of the embedded energy costs. And there is still great disagreement over just how much those costs are, hence the kind of exercise you wish to do (ethanol BTUs minus energy inputs) is just not possible. We need to look to how much we oil we are using. And because ethanol is a gasoline replacement, it should show up most starkly in the gasoline demand curve.

So, the gasoline demand curve demands explanation. It certainly doesn’t appear to have been impacted, which I would expect had ethanol displaced large quantities of oil. The fact that it looks as it does suggests 1). Displacement, if any, was so small it is lost in the noise; or 2). There is a more complex explanation, implying that without ethanol that gasoline demand curve would have looked much different than it does. In other words, that argument means that in about 2000 the curve would have changed sharply had ethanol not entered the picture. But in both cases, my statement is still true: There is no apparent gasoline displacement. And again, if you choose to dispute that statement, it is your burden to show apparent gasoline displacement.

Now, the burden is not on me to delve further. I am not making the claim of displacement. I am showing that it doesn’t show up on the gasoline demand curve. Understand that the position you are taking in no way requires them to justify their claims. You have rendered the gasoline demand growth curve irrelevant, which means that it doesn’t really matter how much displacement they claim. Their claim could essentially be “We have displaced half of U.S. oil consumption”, but by refusing to look at whether our oil consumption has actually changed you merely give them a pass there.

No, not so. At this stage of the game, it's Robert's (self-proclaimed) duty to say "why" "*they* are wrong."

Sigh. I have stated this in several different ways. They are wrong because the actual barrels of ethanol produced are far less than the claimed displacement. They are wrong because the BOE of ethanol produced is even lower. They are wrong because it takes oil to make ethanol, and that is not factored in. The gasoline displacement curve is just another piece of evidence pointing toward the same conclusion. Our usage has grown at the same rate that it always has. And showing that gasoline displacement curve, it is up to someone claiming displacement to explain why, if displacement occurred, that growth was steady. Tell me why I shouldn’t expect a downward dip. I expect one.

That really is it from me. I am satisfied that this has been explained adequately. The old adage applies: You can’t please all of the people all of the time, but I think the vast majority of objections are thoroughly covered.

Hi Robert,

Thanks for your response.

re: "That really is it from me."

When you say this, which you also said up top, it kind of puts me in a bind. Do I just stop?

Who is setting the ground rules? We both would like to be understood. I'm attempting to be understood on one narrow point, though it's one I believe to be important - (or I wouldn't keep at it like this.) I perhaps should have limited my comments to that, regrets for introducing fanciful ideas like new ways to make the graph, etc. Still, I'd like to respond.

After writing this post, I realize it's long - probably too long. Here's the gist of what I'd like to say:

Robert, you have several options for how you deal with the fact "a gasoline demand graph exists" to bolster your argument. I'm saying that one of the *ways*, which you've mentioned from time to time, is an incorrect way and will not help you, but will possibly hurt your case.

re: "No, Aniya, they made a claim. They didn’t substantiate that claim."

According *to them*, they have made a claim *and* substantiated it with some reasoning and some numbers. Call it "claim" call it "substantiation" - at this stage of the game, they have put out a series of statements.

My suggestion somewhere in this discussion was to first, lay out their claim in a step-by-step fashion. Just to make sure you see what their points are. Then, decide: What do I have a problem with? The framework? The logic? The assumptions? The facts they present, or the way they present them? The calculation or - or what?

I like the points you make here in the section I'll quote below, and I consider these to be valid responses to their claim (which contains in it what *they consider* to be substantiation - of course, it doesn't contain a response to your points, but then again, they haven't seen your points yet, have they?):

You say: "They are wrong because the actual barrels of ethanol produced are far less than the claimed displacement. They are wrong because the BOE of ethanol produced is even lower. They are wrong because it takes oil to make ethanol, and that is not factored in."

Wonderful.

Then, you go on to say:

re: "Understand that the position you are taking in no way requires them to justify their claims."

I completely disagree. What I'm trying to do is to ask you to lay out clearly what you believe their claim is, and respond clearly to *that* claim.

In the process of responding to *their* claim, you can address their points one-by-one, then, yes, you can ask them, for example:

1) You say above: ""They are wrong because the actual barrels of ethanol produced are far less than the claimed displacement."

Okay, wonderful. You are saying you disagree with their numbers. You say: "Nope, the "actual barrels of ethanol produced" and "the claimed displacement" do not match."

Then, you come up with your numbers, show how you got them, and everything is hunky-dory on this point. On to the next point.

This would be "They make a claim, they attempt to substantiate it with numbers, but the numbers do not match."

This would be: "RR replies to their claim, part one."

Wonderful.

re: "Our usage has grown at the same rate that it always has. And showing that gasoline displacement curve, it is up to someone claiming displacement to explain why, if displacement occurred, that growth was steady. Tell me why I shouldn’t expect a downward dip. I expect one."

re: Sentence one:

RR says: "Our usage has grown at the same rate it always has."
This is an important observation and one which might be very useful in an introduction to your response. For example, you might start by saying: "The important thing to notice is that demand is up, up, up. We risk not addressing that when we focus on this small and (in my opinion) questionable amount that ethanol contributes. Let us join together to look at the big picture and take some real steps toward conservation."

Yes, fine. Say whatever you like (don't mean to put words in your mouth) however you want to say it - or not.

Sentence two: "And showing that gasoline displacement curve, it is up to someone claiming displacement to explain why, if displacement occurred, that growth was steady."

I'm getting confused, I thought it was a gasoline consumption curve. If they showed a displacement curve, I didn't see it. (I'll go back when I'm done to try to look at the original post.)

Okay, here we get to the issue I have with what you are saying in this post to me:

My question earlier on was: Okay, you say: "the actual barrels of ethanol produced are far less than the claimed displacement".

1) Is this sentence one I quote of yours -
"actual barrels less than claimed displacement" relevant for the discussion about the graph? In other words, you correct their math - maybe they will concede your math is much better.

You correct their math and then...does the graph question still loom so large in your mind? That's my first question.

2) Second, and more to the point:

"The gasoline displacement curve is just another piece of evidence pointing toward the same conclusion."

*Which* conclusion?

That they did their math wrong? Okay, so they accept your math and everything is now fine? That's the purpose of the curve argument?

3) My main point is: you have several options about how you argue, and I see you as sometimes, in this discussion, seeming to exercise an option I see as potentially damaging to your efforts.

More specifically, you have several options, *as well*, about how you use the fact "a gasoline demand graph exists" to bolster your argument. I'm saying that one of the *ways*, which you've mentioned from time to time, is an incorrect way and will not help you, but will possibly hurt your case.

Option:
You can feel free to begin a *brand new* conversation with them, which ignores their claim and the statements they raise. You are perfectly free to do this. It has the disadvantage of leaving their claim (with its constituent parts) unanswered.

Option:
You can also answer *their claim* and do so by addressing each and every point they make, wart by wart. This, to me, would be the optimal way to do it.

To me, *as an aside*, it would be very helpful to make clear what it is you want to accomplish by pointing at this stage (and please bear with me while I try to answer the gist of what you are saying, which is going to take me a few paragraphs...) - to the graph. Are you using it to show them their math was wrong? Fine, then make that clear. Are you using the curve to substantiate one of your other specific points? For example, to take the "conversion exercise" math: if I recall correctly, you said earlier that the contribution (64 mb) is so small that it would show up as noise, if at all. Fine. You say "See this graph? Noise."

This is an observation on your part. I don't have a problem with that. This is you using the graph as evidence that the new calculations you present as an alternative to their mistaken calculations - is the right calculation, because it is so small it doesn't show.
(If this is your claim.)

Option: I also approve of:
Third alternative: Once you are finished addressing each aspect of the argument they present, then go on to bring up your brand new concern.

Your concern is that this curve just is smooth.

Great concern - wonderful. Ask away. This is RR starting a brand new discussion with them, one in which you ask them to please explain why this graph looks the way it does.

RR says "So, the gasoline demand curve demands explanation."

Fine. Yes, the curve may call for explanation, but not for the reason you give.

What I object to is the following:

You say "There is no apparent gasoline displacement. And again, if you choose to dispute that statement, it is your burden to show apparent gasoline displacement."

I do not dispute this statement.

I dispute: (A) that it is a valid argument to demand that they explain the curve *otherwise* their initial claim is invalid.

This may seem trivial, but I'm saying it's not trivial.

I wish I could put it in caps without yelling. I'll try to come up with a different way to say it. It is *not* valid to demand that they explain the curve and *if they do not do so*, then their entire claim is invalid.

This sentence I just wrote above with the (A) in it, is the point I want to make. (I've tried to say it a number of ways. To me, this one comes pretty close.)

You can demand/ask them to share with you their accounting for the gasoline consumption curve as part of a brand new argument you wish to make.

However, to put it in the terms you did at several points in our discussion, which I've reiterated as (A) above, is not a valid way to argue.

For one thing, it leaves them free to come back with an answer that falls in the category of the following (from you):

"2). There is a more complex explanation, implying that without ethanol that gasoline demand curve would have looked much different than it does."

So, then, if they satisfy your demand with a comeback in category two, would you accept that their entire argument is now *valid*? I don't think you would. Because it's not - or, should say - it wouldn't be.

And this means your original posit of this "test" - this way to validate their claim - is also invalid.

I'm saying that the "counter factual" way of arguing in this case does not work, and does distract.

As part of an answer to their claim with their (not well done) "evidence/substantiation", it doesn't work.

This is what I'm trying to say on the narrow point of the form of your use of the request (on your part) for them to explain the gasoline consumption curve.

My position is that there *are* ways you can use the gasoline consumption curve in your reply to *their* claim with *their* numbers and *their points*, *if* you'd like to do so. (I don't think you have to at all, I think you can make a fine case without it. Perhaps you used it yourself just to check your 64 mb numbers to see that they made sense and fit in. Or whatever.)

However, to demand that they explain the curve according to your criteria (which, as far as I can tell, is unstated) and if they fail to do so, they have failed on all of their claim - I don't believe this works as an argument. (I'm trying to come up with a way to try to talk about what I've called (A) above.)

re: "However, even if they aren’t displacing all oil, but are still making claims about oil displacement, an obvious place to look is the gasoline demand curve."

Yes, this is true. The gasoline demand curve is an obvious place to look. I fully support your asking them about this curve as part of a brand new discussion, that is not part of your answer to *their* claim as presented here so far.

And...the case "all oil displaced", "half oil displaced" or "even 10% oil displaced", isn't the claim they are making. Your introducing this "all oil displaced" as a hypothetical to justify why the demand curve is relevant - well, it isn't necessary to justify why the demand curve is relevant. Also, "all oil displaced" is a special case, as is "half oil displaced", as is 10% oil displaced. None of these are their claim. (Are they?)

This gets a little more complicated and somewhat off topic. For you to start to argue as you have - all oil, half oil, whatever - OK, yes, this would perhaps broaden the number of options for your use of the "fact a demand curve exists", but it doesn't really or wouldn't really address the heart of the logic problem. For the same reasons I'll try to explain.

Yes, the demand curve is relevant.

Yes, it would be very nice and helpful of them to address the "bigger picture" of this large and increasing demand.

No, they do not have to show that there is a displacement on the curve in order to justify their claim that a displacement took place. In theory, I'm saying they don't have to because your counter factual demand isn't valid the way you (at times) have presented it, and also because of the complexity of the issues when dealing with a hypothetical demand (what it would have been if it was other than it was) and a small numerical claim.

They could get out a magnifying glass. OK, so they do this. Then what? They say "Well, some displacement is better than none. We're getting there."

And in fact, this might be even more misleading - to find a slight down dip (though again, is one even theoretically visible using your more accurate numbers?) - because...

It may well be the case (if I can venture out) that there is really zero displacement, right? And that you or others could possibly show this by having a discussion about the embedded energy costs that puts some bounds on it. (But this is a digression.)

If they do answer your request, they could come up with any number of hypotheticals about why the curve would be ever greater.

You would have no way to answer these, would you?

You haven't posited a criteria for what counts as an answer to your demand. So, they come back with "well, the demand would have been even higher." You don't like this. So what?
They did what you said. They explained it.

re: "You have rendered the gasoline demand growth curve irrelevant, which means that it doesn’t really matter how much displacement they claim."

No, I say the curve is relevant.

I ask you how you wish to make use of the fact the curve exists.

I say that your demand of them to show a displacement and *if they don't* their entire set of statements is invalid - is a mistaken way to make use of the fact the curve exists.

In fact, your (presumably) corrected number of 64mb is congruent with *no* "apparent displacement" - is it not?

You can feel free to begin a *brand new* conversation with them, which ignores their claim and the statements they raise. You are perfectly free to do this. It has the disadvantage of leaving their claim (with its constituent parts) unanswered.

That is what you appear to be doing to Robert.

You go on for pages and pages without coming at the argument directly or citing facts; instead, you appear to be trying to talk him to death.  This is more than just a bit hypocritical of you.

You can also answer *their claim* and do so by addressing each and every point they make, wart by wart. This, to me, would be the optimal way to do it.

No, you have the burden of proof backwards.  The proponents of ethanol have claimed that they are displacing gasoline; they must support this claim.  There is a very conspicuous lack of evidence for their claim, which instead appears to support the null hypothesis:  production of ethanol has done essentially nothing to displace gasoline.  It is up to the ethanol interests to show why this is wrong, and why the US taxpayer and consumer should shell out $billions each year to support them.

Aniya, I have to be honest with you. This seems beyond silly to me. First, they made a claim. They did NOT substantiate it with any reasoning as you suggest. They just made a claim that ethanol had displaced 175 million barrels of gasoline. How exactly do you believe they substantiated it? Show me their statements.

Second, it is beyond me why you think I need to state both my Round 1 and Round 2 positions in the debate. I won’t know what Round 2 looks like unless/until they explain why demand growth did not actually change in light of all of this supposed gasoline displacement. They are claiming displacement of a little over 2% of our total oil demand, and over 5% of our gasoline demand. It certainly is fair game to ask, then, why the gasoline demand curve shows constant growth. If gasoline demand had been displaced, it would not show constant demand – unless there were some other unknown factor. It is not my position to come up with this unknown factor. That would be their job to explain why – since they insist displacement has occurred – that it doesn’t show up on that graph.

How I answer their explanation is unknown – since I don’t know what it is. It could be goofy and easy to shoot down. They may have no explanation. They may have a very compelling explanation. But it certainly isn’t the case, as you stated, that I “would have no way to answer these.”

In fact, your (presumably) corrected number of 64mb is congruent with *no* "apparent displacement" - is it not?

Why on earth would it be? If I displaced 64 million barrels of gasoline, which is what this would amount to, then I would expect to see a deflection on the gasoline demand curve equivalent to 64 million annual barrels. The fact that I don’t demands an explanation. Given that I am not the one claiming displacement, it is not incumbent upon me to explain it.