<EuroElections 2009 : EPP-ED The Oil Drum Using Thermodynamics to (Re)Examine Environmental Kuznets Curves>

59 comments on EPA Seeks Comments on 15% Ethanol Blend

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

x on May 11, 2009 - 7:26pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Lost in all the name calling and false accusations is the fact that most Peak Oilers including the majority on this site have no solutions. They revel in doomer porn a la Kunstler and want to coerce others into their view of the future by limiting options such as ethanol. They will not succeed. Doomerism and constrained options do not sell, especially when we are sitting on a means of mitigating the situation, at least for awhile.

Dependency on imported oil is not an option as ethanol opponent westexas has pointed out many, many times. I have pointed out that the EROEI case against ethanol is false. The water usage argument is irrelevant. The pollution argument is overblown in view of fossil fuel pollution. I have pointed out that the supply of corn can be increased if we reduce the number of hogs that are fed in this country and reduce corn exports. Corn exports just feed hogs in other countries plus they consume energy in transport.

Prominent contributors to this site have disparaged ethanol ever since I began following the site. They have all been wrong and they are still wrong. Ethanol will continue to grow in usage despite the doomer porn because opponents present no practical options that are politically viable.

Iowa Governor Culver has also requested a waiver to increase the ethanol content. It will be granted IMO, at least partially.

If ethanol "scammers have no shame" neither do oil companies. They all charge what the market will bear. They receive numerous tax subsidies. They are notorious for wanting public property for private gain and when they get the leases they cheat. Oil companies have a monopoly (perhaps natural) on liquid fuel distribution. And worst of all we have fought 2 major wars over oil in the last 19 years. How many have been killed to maintain our ethanol supply?
Ethanol "scammers" like myself have no need to apologize to anyone.

If anything those who know about Peak Oil and oppose mitigation with ethanol should apologize for the pain their efforts will bring on all Americans.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
kdolliso on May 11, 2009 - 9:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

For you folks that aren't ethanol haters, or lovers, but are just trying to understand the truth, let me say this: According to the EPA, leaving out the Extremely questionable Indirect land use numbers, Ethanol has approx. 40% the GHG emissions as gasoline.

Now, if you're more interested in the truth, than in debating points, you need to know that the vast majority of those ILUC debits will be gone by the first of the year. CARB, immediately upon voting, stated that they were uneasy with the ILUC numbers, and were initiating a "peer review" of the theory. The EPA is doing the same thing.

I'm tired, I've spent the whole day at the VA, and I don't want to do a whole long argument on this, today; but let me make one point. The theory, basically, is that if we use corn for ethanol, we'll plant Less Beans. This will cause Brazil to have to plant More Beans to make up for the Global shortfall in beans.

BIG PROBLEM. This theory overlooks the fact that in the last 5 years Brazil has taken 5 Million Acres of Beans OUT of Production, and we've taken probably close to 10 Million Acres out of grain and cotton production. It also overlooks, of course, the fact that Brazil has 150 Million Acres of prime bean-land lying unused in the Cerrado without cutting down the first tree.

They'll, probably, settle for some number between 50 and 60% just to make everyone happy, but it's highly unlikely to be any higher.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
HankF on May 11, 2009 - 9:52pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

What was your response to this study?

http://www.ucmerced.edu/news_articles/05072009_study_suggests_bioelectri...

In summary (from a CNET article): "Growing plants to make electricity is a more efficient and environmentally sound way to power vehicles than biofuels, according to a study meant to spark a debate over energy policy.

The study's authors modeled how far different classes of cars could go based on the available energy from a unit of land and found that bioelectricity--burning biomass to make electricity--far outperforms ethanol."

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
kdolliso on May 11, 2009 - 10:09pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I think it's probably true.

Let's face it. It, really, all hinges on how many people want to drive an electric car. I don't have the foggiest; and I don't think anyone else does, either. We'll find out.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
lengould on May 12, 2009 - 3:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

because opponents present no practical options that are politically viable.

One clear option is accelerating the switch to PHEV's / EV's such as GM's Volt platform.

I'd also point out that ANY use of bio-mass --> energy depends on nature's photosynthesis for primary energy conversion.

Photosynthesis efficiency in conversion of insolation to harvestable chemical potential energy = 1% in temperate climates with good fertility and rainfall. After harvesting, chipping, torrefaction, transport to power plant, use 0.5%. Then burn in a 33% efficient boiler -> steam turbine, 0.5% x 33% = 0.165% overall efficiency, insolation to electricity. Means that, AT ANY GIVEN LOCATION, a 15% efficient solar-thermal plant can do the same job with 0.165/15 = 0.011 the area of the biomass plantation.

So which is better? 1 sq km of solar thermal which never needs re-planting and doesn't permanently damage anything, or 91 sq km of biomass plantation which depletes the soils, etc. etc. ? (HINT: the answer is solar thermal OR PV -> electrical, electric autos such a GM Volt if transportation fuel is goal))

The Ethanol path is a LOT less efficient than using whole bio-mass to fuel the boiler in a steam generating plant, as above assumes. You could likely assume 200 sq km of farmland to produce the same NET energy out in ethanol (IF ANY NET AT ALL) v.s. 1 sq km of 15% efficient solar generation at the same location.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Willem Verkerk on May 12, 2009 - 4:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

PV generation still seems expensive: 20 to 30 cents/kWh. http://www.solarbuzz.com/SolarPrices.htm

In addition to that, the cost of powering vehicles with electricity is not negligeable either: $7000 extra per vehicle. http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/15/autos/bcg_electric_car_report/index.htm

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on May 12, 2009 - 3:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Prominent contributors to this site have disparaged ethanol ever since I began following the site. They have all been wrong and they are still wrong.

The very fact that the government continues to have to intervene - and yet ethanol companies are still barely solvent - says that we were correct and continue to be correct. This enterprise only exists because of perpetual infusions of taxpayer funds and is propped up by fossil fuels.

If ethanol "scammers have no shame" neither do oil companies. They all charge what the market will bear. They receive numerous tax subsidies.

Let's compare the subsidies and tax payments of both oil companies and ethanol companies. While ethanol companies are begging for more handouts, oil companies continue to pay massive tax payments into the coffers. Only a corn farmer could fail to see the huge discrepancy between the two industries.

And worst of all we have fought 2 major wars over oil in the last 19 years. How many have been killed to maintain our ethanol supply?

We have been over this. Unless you aren't running your tractors on diesel, then why aren't you as culpable as anyone else?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
kdolliso on May 12, 2009 - 11:24am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Well, I'm tired of American Kids Dying for MY Fuel, hence My Purchase of a a FlexFuel Automobile.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on May 12, 2009 - 1:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I guess you have missed the point. Unless your FlexFuel Automobile is running on 100% ethanol (which we know it doesn't) that was produced without the use of foreign petroleum, to the extent that kids are dying for fuel they are dying for your fuel. What you could say is fewer kids are dying for your fuel, but don't kid yourself.

Of course like you I could claim that no American Kids die for MY fuel, since it is derived solely from Canadian petroleum. But like yours, that would be a pretty naive statement.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
kdolliso on May 12, 2009 - 3:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

We produce about 35% of our own petroleum (includes "refinery gain.")

E85 only uses from 15% to 30%, depending on the season, petroleum.

Ergo, if everyone used E85, or a biofuel equivalent, we wouldn't have to import oil from other countries, much less the middle east.

In fact, inasmuch as the Mideast is our "marginal" supplier, a 30% blend would do it.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on May 12, 2009 - 3:30pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

But the point is, for you and all of the other people who want to claim that American kids aren't dying for your fuel - is that you have no way of ensuring that your oil didn't come from the Mideast, or Venezuela, or anywhere else. So these are really hollow claims.

What I want to see is someone running their whole operation off of ethanol and domestic natural gas (although I maintain that it would be more efficient to just use the gas directly as fuel). Those people will have the moral high ground to make those sorts of claims (but of course there will still be oil inputs into tractor tires, plastic parts, etc. etc.). It is really hard to get completely out from under oil in the operation, but I would be satisfied if the fuel inputs were entirely natural gas and ethanol.

Of course if you ever designed the entire operation to run off of ethanol and various by-products, those energy balance issues that I am always harping on will become glaringly obvious. You won't have much ethanol left over to sell.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Willem Verkerk on May 12, 2009 - 4:18pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You make no sense. Because, like Ko said, if all the oil-based components were made from US oil, no need to make war in the Middle East or in other places of the world, and thus no "American kids would be dying for fuel".

And you keep harping always the same thing: "entire operation on ethanol" won't work. I think nobody said it would. Because a solution does not entirely displace fossil fuel, doesn't mean it is no solution.

If you are only "satisfied" with solutions that are "completely out from under oil", I would like to know what your "solution" is....

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on May 13, 2009 - 10:46am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You make no sense.

Rich, coming from a guy who rejects the Theory of Evolution, and further doesn't even understand the scientific definition of theory. But I will play along just this once.

if all the oil-based components were made from US oil,

But they aren't. Thus, my point about people who push ethanol and claim that American kids aren't dying for their fuel. The claim is disingenuous. If you don't understand that, no need to keep bothering me about it.

Because a solution does not entirely displace fossil fuel, doesn't mean it is no solution.

Congratulations. You managed to miss two points there. One, that the issue of fossil fuel inputs - coming at times from Middle East oil, precludes ethanol guys from claiming the moral high ground. If they wish to claim it, get the oil out of the operation. This is the 1st point you missed.

Second, if you ran the operation off of ethanol, the energy balance issue would blow up in their faces - exposing the fact that "entirely displacing fossil fuel" wasn't even a discussion point. The question is whether it displaces any, or more than a trivial amount. If you tried to run the operation off of ethanol, the truth would be hard to escape. This is the 2nd point you missed.

If you are only "satisfied" with solutions that are "completely out from under oil"

But that wasn't what I wrote, was it? If you focus on what I wrote, and not what you wish I had written, then you can save yourself some typing.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Willem Verkerk on May 13, 2009 - 11:58am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Oh, because I don't believe in some theory, I must have it all wrong? How, if we would apply the same to you?

The case was made clear: If only US oil is used, there would be no need to make wars with others over oil? Saying: "but they arent'" does not address the hypothesis. Saying: "If you don't understand that, no need to keep bothering me about it." is a non-sequitur.

Your objection that I missed point One contradicts your objection that I missed point Two. Because the first point speaks about "get the oil out of the operation" and the second point states: "that "entirely displacing fossil fuel" wasn't even a discussion point."

Therefore, I maintain my "no sense" argument.... Good bye.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
robert2734 on May 12, 2009 - 5:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

No American kids died for my electric bike powered by my solar panels. Lot's of Chinese got rich.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

59 comments on EPA Seeks Comments on 15% Ethanol Blend

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version