<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

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.

59 comments on EPA Seeks Comments on 15% Ethanol Blend

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version