Studies purporting to prove sugar ethanol's energy gain were commissioned by the Brazilian government and are intended to support a slave-labor employment scheme. The sugar lands were drained from the Panatel, Brazil's great freshwater swamp, the last, now that we've drained the Everglades (in part for sugar production).

You are wrong regarding P&P. Their study did not include buildings or sandwiches, only the concrete and steel fermenters etc. contained within.

Cellulosic ethanol has an even lousier energy return than sugar systems, contrary to promises for biogengineering and rumen-bug chemistries. These don't exist except in prospecti and investor schemes.

Just a few statements to help balance out the argument...

On EROEI and petroleum inputs...

"A recent research paper produced in "Science" by Berkley scientists noted that ethanol was not only a net energy winner, but that it required very low petroleum inputs compared to gasoline -- about 30 times less. What is most interesting about the Berkley study is that cellulosic ethanol was directly competitive with petroleum itself -- producing 10 times more energy than the amount invested into it. What was ironic was that the Berkley study confirmed Pimentel's earlier analysis that it takes more energy to produce gasoline than gasoline itself contains. So while ethanol is a net energy winner by 30% for corn to 1000% for cellulose, the fuel that sits in your car sucks up some just to be synthesized."

On ethanol as a driver for high food prices...

"The US uses a staggering 30% of its corn for ethanol synthesis. Looking at this figure is intimidating and without understanding the process of modern ethanol synthesis from corn, it is easy to see why many would come to the conclusion that we are using far too much of our food as fuel. In truth, though, the process of ethanol synthesis is a bit more complex.

In processing ethanol, the starch part of the corn is removed and used for manufacturing ethanol. The other part, a high protein remainder, is removed and used as distillers grains in cattle feed. In this way, 30% of the corn and 90% of its protein is saved for use in feed for livestock. When it is taken into account that the kind of corn used for ethanol isn't even the type used for human consumption, it becomes a lot more difficult to implicate ethanol as the sole cause of rising food costs.

In a study by the US Department of Agriculture, use of corn in ethanol production accounted for barely 2% of the total rise in food costs over the past few years. The primary cause, by contrast, was the rising cost of oil which is used for transportation, fertilizer, and harvesting."

Ethanol's effect on fuel prices...

"Currently, according to Department of Energy figures, the US produces 570,000 barrels per day of ethanol. This volume of liquids displaces more than 6 percent of US daily oil imports. To put the volume of ethanol produced in the US in perspective, it would take approximately fifteen years of drilling in ANWR to produce a comparable volume of oil. Since we are importing less oil because of ethanol, it has a positive affect on the price of gasoline. A recent study estimated that without ethanol, gasoline prices at the pump would be 54 cents higher for every gallon. With average pump prices for regular at $4.03 per gallon, without ethanol you'd end up paying $4.57. Not only is this money saved by consumers within the US, it is also money that remains inside the US economy, generating wealth here rather than going to sovereign wealth funds overseas. In total, the 570,000 barrels per day of domestic ethanol displaces about 30 billion dollars in oil imports every year, while helping the US move closer to energy independence."

On ethanol's impact on water resources...

"Though the process of ethanol distillation involves water, most industrial processes do. For example, a cheeseburger consumes 1 gallon of water in the process of its production. According to a US Department of Agriculture study, ethanol takes between 3 and 5 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. And while this may seem like a lot of water, the process of producing gasoline is estimated to take between 4 and 7 gallons of water. In the end, ethanol is less of a strain on water resources than the fuel it competes with."

On new biofuels technology related to ethanol...

"The major focus of the ethanol industry at this point in time is diversifying and improving its feedstock base. The industry is looking to produce ethanol from cellulose and, to this end, is constructing a number of manufacturing facilities around the country. Furthermore, the industry is continuing to improve the types of corn used for ethanol production in order to yield both more energy and more grain for feeding livestock. Another initiative includes the use of more efficient crops like sorghum which produces a sugary liquid that is easier to refine."

What was ironic was that the Berkley study confirmed Pimentel's earlier analysis that it takes more energy to produce gasoline than gasoline itself contains

What a gem. I learn so much on this site everyday!!

The "Science" article mentioned the net EROEI negative of gasoline due to the fact that ethanol is a direct competitor for that fuel. Ethanol is a net gain because it derives a portion of its energy from the sun.

Ethanol is a net gain because it derives a portion of its energy from the sun.

Where do you think oil got its energy from? Magic pixie dust?

Ah, Robert, but the problem is an oil shortage, after all, isn't it? Without replacements, where are we?

And I wasn't comparing ethanol in this case to oil, but to gasoline -- an oil product. Though some here would like to claim that ethanol is a petroleum product which, at 30 times less petroleum inputs than gasoline, it clearly is not.

As for magic pixie dust, if you can show me where to buy some on the commodities and futures market, I'd be happy to speculate :)

Ah, Robert, but the problem is an oil shortage, after all, isn't it? Without replacements, where are we?

That is a completely different question.

Though some here would like to claim that ethanol is a petroleum product which, at 30 times less petroleum inputs than gasoline, it clearly is not.

It is a fossil fuel product, as the inputs are mainly natural gas for the process and coal for electricity. Some diesel and oil for fuel, pesticides, etc. And the processing of ethanol consumes a lot more fossil fuels than the processing of oil. This makes sense if you think about it. One is in a pool underground. You stick in a bit straw and suck out a water insoluble liquid, which you then process. For ethanol, you expend a lot of energy producing the corn, and then you produce a water soluble product that takes a lot of energy to get the water out.

So you completely ignore Berkley scientists who analyzed petroleum imputs and found it to be 30 times less for ethanol than gasoline? If gasoline is the direct product in question, why not compare ethanol to gasoline and not oil? Ethanol can't be used as oil is used. But ethanol can be used to replace one oil product -- ie gasoline.

In any case, as I said before, in the case of ethanol a large portion of the energy imputs come from the sun.

Those scientists conflated conversion efficiency with harvesting efficiency (EROI). And they used narrow boundaries. Robert (and others) have explained this about this at least 20 times on this site.

The focus on the Liebigs input du jour is the problem. Water, food, soil, natural gas, coal, etc. and other limiting inputs are ignored.

So you completely ignore Berkley scientists who analyzed petroleum imputs and found it to be 30 times less for ethanol than gasoline?

Appeals to authority don't impress me. Or can I merely appeal to Pimentel's analysis in response?

As I said above, the major input into ethanol is natural gas. Natural gas is not petroleum, but it is a fossil fuel. I clearly addressed that, and ignored nothing.

If gasoline is the direct product in question, why not compare ethanol to gasoline and not oil?

Because when you process oil you get other products like diesel and jet fuel. It is easy to compare energy/water/etc. usage per barrel of oil, but more difficult to allocate per gallon of gasoline - since various crudes and refinery configurations will produce differing amounts of gasoline. And didn't you just write that ethanol "displaces more than 6 percent of US daily oil imports"?

In any case, as I said before, in the case of ethanol a large portion of the energy imputs come from the sun.

That's also where gasoline gets the vast majority of its inputs. Gasoline is ancient sunshine, with some processing. The energy you spend in processing the gasoline will yield about 10 times what you consumed.

"That is a completely different question."

Not at all. It is the crux of the matter.

cellulosic ethanol was directly competitive with petroleum itself -- producing 10 times more energy than the amount invested into it

If you deconstruct the EBAMM model used in the Berkeley report (freely downloadable from their website), you'll actually find that it calculates an EROEI of cellulosic ethanol of 0.78, not 10. The magic they used to get their reported return was to credit the entire amount of biomass energy used in the processing stage back to the ethanol. (A side fallacy in this model was the assumption that there was enough lignin to run all processes in the plant and to export electricity--this is also in error.) Biomass energy is energy, so claiming an energy return above unity for cellulosic ethanol is simply wrong.

Ah, so Berkley is not a reputable source now? And somehow counting food calories consumed by workers in the negative side is valid, while counting process inputs on the positive side is not?

UC Berkeley has many good scientists. I work with a number of them.

Inputs (whether food calories or biomass used for combustion) are all in the numerator as inputs. I don't understand your distinction. The problem I mentioned is that the input energy used and recorded in the numerator is then zeroed out in the denominator by crediting the output with all the energy used in its production. If it were natural gas consumed to produce ethanol, would you credit the energy content of the natural gas to the output? If you don't zero out the biomass energy consumption (which you shouldn't since biomass energy is still energy, just like natural gas is energy), then you get the 0.78 EROI. It's actually quite logical given how inefficient the whole process is.

Just a few statements to help balance out the argument...

OK, but will you defend them?

A recent research paper produced in "Science" by Berkley scientists noted that ethanol was not only a net energy winner, but that it required very low petroleum inputs compared to gasoline -- about 30 times less

That's because they counted the petroleum itself as an input, even though the output is gasoline. It's kind of like saying "gasoline requires very low corn inputs compared to ethanol."

In a study by the US Department of Agriculture, use of corn in ethanol production accounted for barely 2% of the total rise in food costs over the past few years. The primary cause, by contrast, was the rising cost of oil which is used for transportation, fertilizer, and harvesting."

That's funny, because if the EROEI is good for ethanol, you would expect corn to be more insulated from rising fuel prices. Then again, if the fossil fuel inputs are high, you would expect rising fossil fuel prices to lead to rising corn prices. Which is it? Good EROEI, and food versus fuel is driving corn prices, or bad EROEI, and fossil fuel prices are driving corn prices? (The truth is that it is a bit of both).

Currently, according to Department of Energy figures, the US produces 570,000 barrels per day of ethanol. This volume of liquids displaces more than 6 percent of US daily oil imports.

Ignores the fact that ethanol has a much lower energy density than a barrel of oil, and treats them as the same. In fact, the energy density in a barrel of oil is quite a bit higher than the density for gasoline. A barrel of oil has double the energy density of ethanol, so your quoted statement his horse hockey. Further, does not take into account the fossil fuels it took to make the ethanol.

According to a US Department of Agriculture study, ethanol takes between 3 and 5 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. And while this may seem like a lot of water, the process of producing gasoline is estimated to take between 4 and 7 gallons of water.

Try 0.52 gallons of water per gallon of crude oil processed:

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/03/water-usage-in-oil-refinery.html

Those numbers come from publicly available refinery statistics from the refinery I used to work at. So that's not just a guess. That's a number that I know.

"That's because they counted the petroleum itself as an input, even though the output is gasoline. It's kind of like saying "gasoline requires very low corn inputs compared to ethanol.""

If you're looking to reduce overall petroleum inputs, it's absolutely valid. And of course petroleum imputs to gasoline would be high -- as gasoline is a petroleum product. But ethanol is not, and therefore, does not rely so much on petroleum. Isn't that the goal? Reduced reliance on petroleum. Well, perhaps not for those in the oil industry but it should be very important for the rest of us, especially if we look for solutions to oil supply problems.

"That's funny, because if the EROEI is good for ethanol, you would expect corn to be more insulated from rising fuel prices. Then again, if the fossil fuel inputs are high, you would expect rising fossil fuel prices to lead to rising corn prices. Which is it? Good EROEI, and food versus fuel is driving corn prices, or bad EROEI, and fossil fuel prices are driving corn prices? (The truth is that it is a bit of both)."

Well ethanol is getting hit, like everyone else, by rising transportation costs and energy costs across the board. With such a high portion of all transport dominated by oil, it tends to skew the assessment. What should be noted is the positive impact ethanol has on the price of oil -- approximately 56 cents lower at the gas pump. So such a small portion of ethanol has a pretty broad impact. In any case, the rising cost of corn, of which floods currently have had a major impact, is the primary pressure on ethanol at the moment.

"Ignores the fact that ethanol has a much lower energy density than a barrel of oil, and treats them as the same. In fact, the energy density in a barrel of oil is quite a bit higher than the density for gasoline. A barrel of oil has double the energy density of ethanol, so your quoted statement his horse hockey. Further, does not take into account the fossil fuels it took to make the ethanol."

And you ignore the fact that certain blends of ethanol, as an oxygenate, actually increases fuel efficiency by a given amount.

For my part, I do not resort to personal attacks. I have quoted figures produced by legitimate agencies. Meanwhile, you resort to character assassination. I would expect little less from someone with such a personal stake in the failure of ethanol as a fuel.

"Try 0.52 gallons of water per gallon of crude oil processed."

Well according to government studies, gasoline takes between 4 to 7 gallons of water. I didn't post figures on crude oil directly because I wasn't comparing ethanol with crude oil. That said, I've seen conservative figures on oil (from the National Renewable Energies Labratory) ranging from about 90 gallons per barrel for that process alone (or 2.5 gallons of water per gallon of crude).

http://www.drivingethanol.org/ethanol_facts/water.aspx

Wow, Robert, you link your own article from your own blog. That's independent validation for you...

If you're looking to reduce overall petroleum inputs, it's absolutely valid.

But it isn't EROEI. It's one thing to say "We need to reduce oil consumption." It is something quite different to say "It is more energy efficient to produce ethanol than gasoline." The second statement is simply false, yet that is the implication (if not blatantly stated).

What should be noted is the positive impact ethanol has on the price of oil -- approximately 56 cents lower at the gas pump.

So you expect that demand won't respond to price? As oil prices have risen, gasoline demand has softened. That has had a big impact on the ability of gasoline prices to keep pace. But ethanol likes to take all that credit.

And you ignore the fact that certain blends of ethanol, as an oxygenate, actually increases fuel efficiency by a given amount.

Show me any large, independent study that shows this. And you might notify the DOE, who still shows a substantial mileage hit from ethanol:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/

For my part, I do not resort to personal attacks. I have quoted figures produced by legitimate agencies. Meanwhile, you resort to character assassination.

What character assassination? You mean like the one you did here:

I would expect little less from someone with such a personal stake in the failure of ethanol as a fuel.

But I have to ask - and this is a legitimate question and not character assassination - are you stupid? Why on earth do you think I want ethanol to fail as a fuel? I am personally heavily involved in a cellulosic ethanol project. The backers of that project would be quite amused by your suggestion. What I dislike is misinformation, and you have been posting misinformation.

Wow, Robert, you link your own article from your own blog. That's independent validation for you...

And I gave links and sources in the article, which you conveniently omit. Can you not read? Do you think the utility bills have been falsified? Do you think I am just making it up; that I don't know the water usage in my own refinery? But what else should I expect from someone who falsely complains about character assassination, and then turns around and actually assassinates my character?

Nice work RM - I should read through some of your earlier posts.

The PIR or petroleum input ratio of liquid fuels (let alone all post-peak initiatives) has been at the center of my argument for years.

You encapsulated the ethanol debate to a T.

The one caveat I would add, however, is what U.S. ethanol has truly replaced or displaced rather, as outlined in an excellent contribution by our resident actuary here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2423

I'm not saying that ethanol is limited to that amount by any means but as a proponent of the fuel, Gail's observation was rather sobering.

Perhaps you should read the P&P study newland. Furthermore... you've been here long enough to have seen the excellent posts we've done on Brazilian cane->etoh production as well. I would recommend refreshing yourself with de Sousa's work.

Here's how ethanol is done properly:

Louisiana's governor Bobby Jindal has signed into law the Advanced Biofuel Industry Development Initiative, the most comprehensive and far-reaching state legislation in the United States, enacted to develop a statewide advanced biofuel industry. Louisiana is the first state to enact alternative transportation fuel legislation that includes a variable blending pump pilot program and a hydrous ethanol pilot program. The initiative will also give an efficiency boost to the ethanol industry in the state by supporting high yielding non-corn crops.

The legislature found that the proper development of an advanced biofuel industry in Louisiana requires implementation of the following comprehensive “field-to-pump” strategy (as developed by Renergie, Inc., which utilizes high yielding, water-efficient sweet sorghum).

Yep. Pimentel is always cited by those who dislike ethanol because it is the most pessimistic study available. As you stated above, it includes such ridiculous things like how much calories workers consume in the form of food as part of the 'net energy' equation.

As you stated above, it includes such ridiculous things like how much calories workers consume in the form of food as part of the 'net energy' equation.

and I bet they wouldn't do that for gasoline.

Oh Pimentel probably would have. He was the ultimate bean counter when it came to EROEI.