The Oil Drum

51 comments on Ethanol and the Environment

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Nate Hagens on September 4, 2007 - 10:58am

The historic debates on whether and by how much the energy gain of ethanol was positive have been a red herring. Irrespective of that bottom line, the other limiting inputs to corn ethanol make it far inferior to gasoline. Even if cellulosic ethanol lives up to its claims of higher energy return (which I find doubtful because the initial ethanol solution is less concentrated than with starch ethanol) it will still have the scalability problems of other limiting inputs.

But it is natural to want to find a 'replacement' for something, in fact we are conditioned to do so. In the end, changing our way of life and moving away from the internal combustion engine will serve us much better than scaling up land, material, soil and water inputs to create an inferior fuel. But it will take time for this message to sink in, because its a very difficult one (at first) to accept.

I'm mostly concerned about water. David Pimentel told me the Kreider study seriously understates the amount of water needed for corn ethanol, which is presumably a boundary issue which Im trying to suss out.

About 10.2 kg of corn is required to produce 1 gallon of ethanol. The average water requirement per kilogram of biomass is 1,000 liters. In Pimentels latest water paper they report that 650 liters of water are required to produce 1 kg of corn. This means 6630 liters of water for just the corn in 1 gallon of ethanol - or about 1754 gallons of water. And still a little more water is required in the fermentation and processing operation.

Water, like oil, is seemingly cheap, unless one lives in Western US. As nasty as oil and gas production are, they at least limit their environmental impacts to small land areas relative to biofuel production.

Systems analysis at the highest levels of government needs to address the linkages between water and energy. Fully 50% of our nations water use goes to the energy sector already. If we scale non oil and gas energy sources - what will this mean for water? In the end I think most of us would rather drink than drive...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

BillJames on September 4, 2007 - 12:48pm

Logically, it seems silly to try and shove the sun through a corn cob to get energy.

If we use solar power directly, we would get durable energy at an affordable price. If all the highways in the US had 20 feet of solar collectors over them, we would harvest 27 Quads (10 watts/square foot); an amount equal to the energy currently consumed by transportation.

Using JPods instead of cars, replace moving a ton to move a person and strive to move only the person, we can cut the energy budget to 6.8 Quads (5 for oil, .8 for JPods).

The solar collection creates a surplus of power of about 6.2 Quads. The collection is 1.4 million miles of JPods rail with solar collectors 8 foot wide.

There is a synergy between the distributed nature of the transportation grid and the distributed energy from sunshine.

Thomas Edison, 1910:
"Sunshine is spread out thin and so is electricity. Perhaps they are the same, Sunshine is a form of energy, and the winds and the tides are manifestations of energy.”

“Do we use them? Oh, no! We burn up wood and coal, as renters burn up the front fence for fuel. We live like squatters, not as if we owned the property.

“There must surely come a time when heat and power will be stored in unlimited quantities in every community, all gathered by natural forces. Electricity ought to be as cheap as oxygen...."

Historical Curiosity: I wonder what our world would look like today if Edison had teamed up with Eistein based on Einstein's 1905 proof of Quantum Mechanics based on the PhotoElectric Effect. Sunshine and electricity might cost nearly the same.

It also seems likely that burning food in cars that are less than 1% efficient is environmentally as unwise as burning oil. In normal commuter travel, cars have a Parasitic Energy Consumption (ratio of moving mass to mass of cargo and passengers) of about 300.

There is no energy crisis. Government planning and monopoly of transportation and energy has brought us to where we are. If we wish to have a different future than Peak Oil and Global Warming we need de-monopolize energy and transportation as we de-monopolized communications in 1984.

Germany broke the government monopoly of energy with the policy where anyone can be a power company, sell surplus electricity to the grid at 20% over cost to buy. The result is an explosion of innovation and 100,000 new jobs in the solar industry.

To create environmentally sound transportation and energy, we need an environment that allows creativity.

bill.james@jpods.com
It costs less to move less

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Jack on September 5, 2007 - 5:10am

Nate,

I broadly agree with your analysis. When one considers the resource inputs, especially water, corn-based ethanol does seem like an environmental war crime.

But I wonder why you don't take it to the next level. Why don't we ban high fructose corn syrup? Given that this foolish corn-based ethanol quest is recent and may well be short lived, the syrup seems like a greater offender.

It seems the the best solution here would be better pricing of water resources. If your figures are correct, which I assume they are, I would assume that subsidized water supply to corn farmers is as much the problem as anything else.

The problem is that it is very difficult to separate uses of corn. In an ideal world, maybe water used for nutricious foods (corn, flour, etc) would have a low tax. Corn dogs and popcorn a bit higher, corn syrup and ethanol the highest. Removing subsidies for ethanol is obviously the right first step, but if the goal is to better use our natural resources, there are other culprits.

Anyone who rants about how destructive our vehicle based lifestyle is, but eats more than a few ounces of beef per day, or drinks soda, would appear a tad hypocritical.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

VIN Biodiesel on September 5, 2007 - 3:40pm

Precisely!
Anyone on this list who hasn't should read Omnivore’s Dilemma. Polan barely talks about ethanol but spends several chapters on corn and how absurd our big agribusiness system is. Adding fuel to the mix only makes it a little more absurd because very little of the cultivated acreage of the U.S. is devoted to directly feeding people, much less to fueling vehicles. The majority of corn goes into cow-feed and soda pop, neither of which is smart or necessary. Seems to me that long before we have to choose between growing food or fuel, we will have to choose between fuel and Pepsi, call it the “New Pepsi Challenge” if you like. Already, due to “peak soil” we are in reality faced with a choice between soda and food, and healthful food and marbled beef. The fuel or food dichotomy, at least in North America, is a red herring.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Aniya on September 5, 2007 - 9:43pm

Hi Jack,

I really like your points here. I wonder if there is any way (time?) to do some analysis and quantify...I suppose it might not be too difficult, if one were to look at money flows of the corn syrup industry, and then look at percent water use of total ag use this represents. (Still would be some work, though.)

Also, do you have any idea about numbers - annual production numbers: HF corn syrup v. ethanol?

re: "subsidized water supply to corn farmers" and "...corn syrup and ethanol the highest..."

The thing is, it seems like one could make the exact same argument for, say, packaging of all kinds. In this case, it would be oil and/or wood products (?), as opposed to water. They use more resources - (?)- than say, bulk grains from bins at the co-op, - though, too, might be a wash, if people use plastic bags to weigh out unpackaged items.

Addressing this in a positive way...how complicated. If you don't tax the corn farmer, but you then tax the "value-added" food products corp. - what's to say? People might end up still going for fast food.

Still, it's a good idea.

re: "there are other culprits."

So, what do you think? A plastic bottle tax? Ban? Ration fast food?

Edit: The graph w. "Dry weight, pounds per capita per year" is interesting.

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

It looks like the Avg. American consumes right around his/her weight in sweeteners each year. (?)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Jack on September 6, 2007 - 1:23am

Also, do you have any idea about numbers - annual production numbers: HF corn syrup v. ethanol?

I don't have figures, but will try to look them up and make a rough approximation. The problem may be getting all the conversion figures (corn the corn syrup versus corn to ethanol). As I mentioned, I did a rough calculation, which I posted some months ago, showing that 5% of global fuel use and current sugar production are roughly similar is scale.

I am not a huge supporter of ethanol, but can't for the life of me see why poor small scale farmers in Thailand (where I live) growing sugar cane for ethanol makes people irate while growing the same sugar for Pepsi seems to be fine.

The thing is, it seems like one could make the exact same argument for, say, packaging of all kinds. In this case, it would be oil and/or wood products (?), as opposed to water. They use more resources - (?)- than say, bulk grains from bins at the co-op, - though, too, might be a wash, if people use plastic bags to weigh out unpackaged items.

I think this is right too. I sense that the big difference is that reducing waste allows us to continue "life as it is now". Since for some "life as it is now" seems to be the problem they are fighting against, reducing waste is a low priority - or in fact could be negative.

In this regard, ethanol, as a tiny part of a bridge to a new way of continuing with our lives, is the target of much more venom than piles of useless plastic bags.

I am not unsympathetic to either argument. I would love to see mankind transition to a completely different and better way of life, but I don't belive in throwing out what we have and just hoping too many people don't die on the way to an imagined salvation.

I do think we need to look in a quantitative and analytical way at the various waste with our system and find ways to reduce it. Improving the energy efficiency of civilization is one way to cope with the shrinking efficiency in energy production.

I do believe we are near peak oil and that there are no easy answers. However, I also believe that hard answers are still answers. I do think that trying different solutions and seeing which work is what is going to get us through this problem.

I have never seen a convincing argument that proves mankind couldn't, in theory, live just as happily on half the energy we use now. I expect the reality will be much more painful, but I don't thinkit is futile.