The St Louis Renewable Energy Conference - Day 1
Posted by Heading Out on October 12, 2006 - 11:13am
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: biodiesel, biomass, ethanol, renewable energy [list all tags]
So, how is it going? Well the best set of talks, in my view, was the last panel discussion of the afternoon on liquid fuels and bio-products. The presentations were very informative and the discussion lively and interactive, and the panelists were very realistic. But to begin let me start with where I walked in, just after the meeting started. And I immediately found that I could not find a seat in a room seating over 800. (There is talk that counting everyone there will be around 1500 folk here).
Robert Lane, CEO of Deere & Companies, (John Deere to us older folk) then talked about sustainable businesses and did try and break away from the ethanol theme a little. He talked of the need to develop harvesting and transport and treatment technologies if we are to make best use of the biomass available (which may be as high as 1 billion tons a year). He raised the question as to whether the prices we see now are just the result of an "oil bubble" again bringing up the memories of the 1980's and the bath the industry took. Deere is now into Wind, with the Blue Grass Ridge Project, and they see an opportunity there in developing a business. And he felt that the use of cellulosic ethanol would get us out of the conflict over "food or fuel", carrying inherent in that message the theme that perhaps corn ethanol would not be a long term solution. (Which is also an interpretation of what Pat Woertz had said). However, there are issues in biomass use, that relate to transportation and processing costs that have so far been hidden in the larger debate over the reality of whether cellulosic ethanol can be brought into commercial scale production.
Secretary Johanns (USDA) then gave a welcome and his feeling that the potential for renewable energy had never been greater than now. We are not living in the past, where the foreign powers could shut down innovation, by turning a tap, and then he made a remark that perhaps only our readers might appreciate. "New technologies, such as ethanol, are now giving us more bang for our buck!" He then went on to add generating methane from animal waste, and the use of biomass in creating plastics. That is apparently a UDSDA mandate (and before the afternoon was out I had been presented with a bio-sourced vial of "Sun Clean" a rust penetrant, and had been shown plates made from a renewable source, and also had another pen.) He also mentioned a common theme for the day, namely that, in the end, the market must decide what survives and which path to follow.
Secretary Bodeman discussed the need to commercialize technologies more rapidly, and that the equivalent of 500,000 homes were now being powered by Wind energy. Solar is growing 35% a year and there is no apparent let-up in sight for either technological market growth. And he pointed out that it is the contributions from the National Laboratories that provide leadership to the industry.
Following the break Red Cavaney, President of API talked about Energy Policy, which again seemed to break down to "let the market decide." He did however take the odd dig at ethanol, but merely by noting that it should meet certain standards, that it is difficult to have "boutique" ratios in different states, and that it does not pipe well. He did, however, seem to welcome ethanol and felt that it had a place in the growing need to ensure supply that would meet national demand.
That was not enough for Vinod Khosla, who followed him, and hastened through an overlong presentation (which allowed him to skip slides that might have been more controversial). I was, however, given (and perhaps as a result of) his posting here, and the comments thereon, somewhat startled to hear him say (as he rapidly flipped past the slide) "but then of course considerations of EROEI are really irrelevant, what we must be concerned with is how much can we provide to meet market demand." (Which reminds me of the joke "sure we lose $.05 a part, but we make it up in volume.". . Drum roll). This was obviously a speech where passion, and playing to the passion of the audience (did I mention that this seemed like an Ethanol Tent Revival Meeting?) was meant to get past any awkward questions about accuracy. It was one of those talks (Pimental was guilty of the same thing in DC earlier this year) where the presenter tries to overpower any credulity issues of the audience by mannerisms and speed of presentation. You might gather I was not impressed.
We then had a much more credible, thoughtful and practical presentation by Charles Holliday, who is the CEO of DuPont (note that I have consulted for this company). He talked much more about the overall way in which the company is changing to accommodate the reality of the changing situation. The company started as an explosives company, then it regenerated itself to deal more with Energy as a whole, and now he feels that it is time for another rebirth. This includes using bio-crops to produce new materials.
The breaks were in the exhibit hall, with a significant number of the booths taken by DOE and USDA, though as I wandered around, there were a number of other interesting pieces of equipment. I thought that the DOE benchtop with a lamp shining on solar cells, that provided current that electrolyzed water into hydrogen and oxygen, which were stored in columns and then fed to a fuel cell that provided power to drive a small electric car, should be in every school. (Though they probably could not afford it).
Lunch had Senator Talent, apparently in a tight re-election race (which might be why we have the speaker we have tomorrow noon), gave remarks at Lunch. They were short and included the comment that we have begun the path to Energy Independence, that he would like to create a National Center for Plant Science, and that "the genie is out of the bottle" in regard to alternate fuels, and that the oil companies (countries ?) would not be able to put it back.
There were a couple of breakout sessions in the afternoon, one on liquid fuels and one on electricity and heat. I went to the liquid fuels ones, though the poor quality of sound at the back of the hall meant that I dozed through a couple of the early presentations. The first session was partially a love-fest over ethanol, with an interesting twist. The first speakers discussed the potential growth of ethanol, the number of plants now in planning or construction, and the likelihood of 10% ethanol being achievable in the near future. They also discussed the productivity of corn ethanol, with numbers ranging from 300 to 600 gallons/acre. (Robert Fraley, the Executive VP of Monsanto sees these values as only steps along a stair, with there being no limit to ultimate crop yields per acre as time and technology progress). He does admit to a short-term problem in feeding all the plants that are now being planned for ethanol use, and was concerned that as we grow our biodiesel production we may reduce soybean product exports.
And this brought up the twist in the panel presentations. The panel included Craig Rockey, the Senior Vice President of the Association of American Railroads. He was determined that we understand that the railroads are making major investments to meet demand, and that they are, as a result, reasonably entitled to a fair return on their investment. But he did mention that if you wanted a reasonable price you should plan on shipping products long distances in unit trains. (I had two different folk at the conference comment to me about the problems that are increasingly arising in getting the railroads to provide short-haul (say across the state of Wyoming) service, regardless of price).
Amory Lovins talked about making cars with advanced materials, so that they would be lighter, safer, and that you could then still drive your SUV, but that you would get 65 mpg. Largely it seemed taken from his latest book. He did not seem really aware of the NG supply problem, since he talked about its use as part of the solution. He advocated smaller production facilities for biofuels, and wondered who would get all the profits from this new technology. (And he promptly left).
And this, after the break, brought us to the rather worthwhile panel that included Robert Engel President of CoBank, Michael Walsh of Chicago Climate Exchange, Carl Holmes Immediate past chairman of the National Council of State Legislators and a Representative in the Kansas House of Representatives (and a farmer), Donald Paul, Vice President and CTO of Chevron, and Vijay Vaitheeswaran, of The Economist, a writer on energy whose opinions have been discussed in these pages before.
The panel began with individual presentations including that of Bob Dinneen, President of the Renewable Fuels Association (which, from his remarks, I gather means Ethanol). These were folk who have been out there, seen and worked the system, and were willing to talk about it. Fascinating!
Bob Engel funds ethanol plants, and is probably the largest lender to the renewable fuels industry in the US. He is increasingly concerned that as the ethanol industry transitions from just being an additive to gasoline, into being a Transportation Fuel, that it does not understand the ramifications of the change. Once there is, even slightly, more than enough ethanol to meet the mandates, then it becomes a competitive market, and if it is over-supplied can the producers weather the resulting downturn? Are they prepared for the time when a competing process (say cellulosic ethanol) turns up to eat their lunch, and what will their response be? Do they understand the role that transportation costs play in fuel economy. (Coal transport costs can be greater than the initial coal value). Do they understand that plants need to be a certain distance apart? That states can only produce so much corn, and that if you need more you may have to bring it a longer way. Until now many ethanol plants have been largely funded out of the farming community, a group with relatively long and patient attitudes to returns on investment. As the opportunity for investment shifts to others, however, that patience, and willingness to wait will likely go away. This might not be a good thing! But in the short term there are lots of investors, there is enough corn, and demand, and farmers might be able to get a good price for their crops.
In a very similar practical discussion Representative Holmes talked about the reality of Hubbert's Peak (the first mention of it I heard this day). He had seen oil fields started in Kansas that were now plugged and gone. He would not object if the money now spent on oil imports was, in part, sent to Kansas for alternate fuels. But he pointed out that his State does not like mandates, and that they don't work well. He rather favors tax credits, and other similar incentives, though he feels corn ethanol no longer needs them, cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel still do. He also mentioned a current ethanol plant in Russell, KS that captures the carbon dioxide and uses it to inject into an underlying oil reservoir for EOR, and that there will be a similar plant installed soon in Oklahoma that will do the same.
I will confess that while I have some understanding of the trading of carbon credits, it is one of those topics that allow me to rest my brain for a few minutes, and so I did not properly follow Michael Walsh's presentation on the Chicago Climate Exchange, for which I apologize. Everyone on the panel however did, and several commented that the issue is now here, and is not going to go away again, but will become accepted as a cost of doing business (at an estimated $.03 to $0.20 per gallon).
Don Paul then talked about Chevron's position. He pointed out that producing a million gallons of ethanol for the local folks was nice, but there are issues of Scale that have to be considered if ethanol (or any other bio-fuel) is to find a sustainable and significant position in world fuel supply. Bear in mind that a billion gallons of fuel will be consumed today - biofuels are not yet up there, but they will help ameliorate the situation as supplies begin to get tight. But when ethanol suppliers enter that scale of business they will have to understand the realities of the transportation fuels situation. If the price falls below your cost, do you still run the plant? He did mention that he thinks that the remaining oil reserve in the world is about 1 trillion barrels, though he felt that coal, oil shale, and biomass (US having significant quantities) would impact the situation in the intermediate term. And in that environment will the ethanol plants be sustainable, and able to cope with fluctuating demand and price, the way refineries now do. Bearing in mind that cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel are in development, what happens to corn ethanol plants as they face this competition? Will the capital invested be outflanked by this new technology? (If the ethanol driven car has the reliability of a cell phone then they are in trouble).
Vijay Vaitheesawaran was introduced as a likable fellow, and certainly seemed to fill that bill. He is currently on sabbatical finishing (this month) his second book, which will cover ethanol in much more detail than his first (which hardly mentioned it). He did mention being nervous about contradicting Vinod Khosla, though he also mentioned that Khosla seemed a bit shy about mentioning his hydrogen and fuel cell investments. He (Vijay) was very much convinced that the market should ultimately rule (and in discussion the panel fairly consistently agreed, with the caveat about short-term initiatives to start an industry). (I have to confess to being so engrossed in the debate here that I stopped taking notes). The US, it was pointed out, was doing more about climate change than it was given credit for, while in Europe the situation was reversed.
Finally it was noted that we are entering the demonstration plant phase for cellulosic ethanol, but that it will be 5 years before realistic commercial decisions on the technology can be made, based on plant operational results.
Sadly this hotel has no room internet service (funny when many of those in Poland do) and, given that the security arrangements require that we be there early tomorrow, I am just going to have to go down and see if I can find a way of quickly uploading this before heading out for an early night.
More should follow tomorrow.
P.S. I said "Hi!" to Matt Simmons at the reception, and am looking forward to hearing him in the morning. And I apologize that I still don't have the photographic talent to take presentation pictures.
(And if this appears twice my apologies - am having considerable problems this evening)
[editor's note, by Prof. Goose] Don't forget about the ASPO-USA Conference in a couple of weeks!




(needless to say, I am not holding my breath on a breakthrough). Electrification seems the better course of action in my opinion. Work on improved battery capacity, dual mode guideways (where vehicles retrieve electricity from a rail for longer distance travel and use batteries for the first and last 5-15KM of the journey) and mainline rail electrification. Save the remaining fuel (petro- or bio-) for heavy equipment and airplane usage. Use a mix of sail and fuel for transoceanic shipping.
Of course trying to make a profit on these concepts may be harder.
Since you seem pretty main stream, here is a mainstream link -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13325827/site/newsweek/
You just may want to read their English information at http://www.skysails.info/index.php?L=1
Take particular note of their first paragraph -
'A simple fact: wind is cheaper than oil and the most cost-effective offshore energy source. Yet, despite its attractive saving potential, it is not presently being used by cargo ships - for a simple reason: so far no sailing system has met the requirements of commercial shipping.'
Of course, do notice some of the key features - computer controlled, navigation optimization, high technology fabrics, essentially bolt on to existing ships, basically no extra crew requirements, fairly low cost, with fuel savings estimated to be up to 33%.
I seem to remember reading about this a couple of years ago (in German), back when it is was more a concrete concept than a product. Just another German trait - good ideas are merely the start of the process of making money, not the end of it. As you can maybe guess, there is a real lack of German financial engineers doing world class financial engineering. In that, the U.S. is vastly ahead.
Considering the U.S. doesn't have much of a merchant fleet anymore anyways, your scorn is perhaps forgiveable as ignorance. As you can see from the links, the tanker won't cruise into port under 'sail' - it will just use the 'sail' for most of its journey - which can be even faster than if it simply used its engines. German engineering tends to be like that - increasing efficiency means that you have your choice of sober cost savings or more excitement - or a mixture of those two extremes. In this case, I am pretty sure that the shipowners will make the decision they find most profitable between fuel cost/turnaround time.
You know, checking out what other economies/societies are doing as they face a future of more expensive energy might give a broader view of the fact that technology is not an either/or tool. Ignorance is not a very profitable way of looking at things, if money is your interest. Money is certainly a German one.
Thats so cool btw :P
We need more electricity, more grid, more trolleys, more light rail. forget auto giveaways and American Corn Association and National Corn Association nonsence. ADM?
Everything to know about biofuels has been published by Pimentel.
You can get a pretty good pictuure by putting Pimental and ethanol into Google.
He seems to be a respected scientist, although with a focus on insects, at Cornell who was among the first to investigate ethanol EROEI. he often writes jointly with Patzek of Berkeley.
His studies are consistently the most negative, hence his currency on the anti-biofuels side of the park. I have seen some solid criticisms regarding very dated or negative assumptions, however my overall impression is that his work is professional and does provide some very good insights into the problems with corn ethanol. Despite some claims I have heard here, his ethanol work seems to focus only on corn ethanol. I have seen a range of studies in which he also writes on energy content in food.
In the ethanol issue, I think everyone is biased, either promoters or enemies of biofuels. Pimental, in my opinion, is in the second camp. I see Robert Rapier as an exception.
My own take on corn ethanol is it has to be nonsense: industrial monoculture agriculture just can't be that efficient when you sum up all the inputs. And in the end, you will deplete the soils (fertilizer or no fertilizer, the Great Plains are simply several thousand years of glacial effluvium-- when they are gone and their minerals depleted, they are simply, gone).
however
if you throw in an ability to use agricultural waste and/ or cellulosic ethanol, then I can see how it could work.
caveat
that same raw material could be directly used as boiler fuel, where I suspect it would be a more efficient use of energy (Drax power station, the largest CO2 emitter in Europe, was partly powered with biofuel for a while).
further caveat
I don't believe it's a win (the latter case) from a global warming point of view. You take sequestered carbon, burn it, and release it into an atmosphere that cannot absorb the existing CO2.
As discussed on Robert's earlier thread, I do think sugar cane-based ethanol can be EROEI positive and can provide benefits to certain countries over a finite period of time in the future. It is also a huge win in terms of global warming. Sugar cane derived ethanol seems to produce over 80% less emissions per mile than gasoline.
Personally, I think we are at or near a plateau in oil production. While I'm not convinced production levels will drop off sharply, I don't think they will go up much from here ever.
So, I think we need to develop solutions. I am not driven by an unrepenting obsession with the evils of vehicular transportation so I don't see any option for prolonging it as a scream inducing evil.
I fully expect that in 10 or 20 years, we will have a lot less oil available, but will have largely transitioned to an electricity-based transportation system.
It is the interim that worries me. I do think that conservation could be our savior, but don't see any effective means of making it happen other than price. So, I would like to see this done in part throught axes, but am fairly pessimistic that governments will intervene effectively.
Despite all the calls for a Manhattan project, governmnets are craven and inefficient. The thing we have now that is closet to a Manhattan project is the US corn ethanol program , which is a travesty. There is no reason to think the next attempt will be better unless you earn you living at a government funded research lab.
This is all a long winded way of saying that the number of good solutions on the table that can work today is very small. I think we need to take what we can get. Ten years or so of producing ethanol at levels up to or even in excess of double current sugar cultivation is hardly an enormous threat to the environment. In fact, given climate gains, it could be a net plus.
Biodiesel, CTL, tar sands, beef consumption, junk food, the amount of sugar in our diets, etc. all seem far worse for the environment.
I am amazed by how agitated people get over ethanol from sugar cane. I think is is primarily because it does work and to them threatens to prolong the car culture.
But for a country like Thailand, where I live, it makes sense and will happen. The only arguments that I can see against Thailand producing 10% or more of spark engine fuel from sugar are oil prices will come down, pollution and global warming don't matter and spending 10% of your GDP on imported petroleum is just fine.
None of these are true, so Thailand will produce a fuel that is cheaper than gasoline, is produced domestically with almost all domestic content, is a net plus for the environment/climate and offset a masssive transfer of Thai wealth to foreigners.
When electric transport becomes viable, ethanol production will stop. But Thais will be glad they did it.
rant mode on
I suspect but haven't researched it that sugar cane is a pesticide nightmare? My own take on all agriculture is that if it needs massive amounts of pesticide (and herbicide, and fertilizer) its not a long term solution.
Sugar is this ridiculously controlled market. Agriculture is overprotected and oversubsidised world wide (yet we let people starve), and sugar is amongst the most controlled commodites (or the most controlled).
A sample, sugar costs 4 times as much for a food processor in the US than in Canada. Thank you ADM company and High Fructose Corn Syrup!
Of course then there is Cuba. If the US wanted cheap ethanol, it should go to Cuba. GWB's election in 2000 and a Cuban kid named ?Rafeal Elian? got in the way.
rant mode off
I'm not sure about CO2 ethanol v. gasoline. I'm not sure how one hydrocarbon can have 80% less CO2 emitted than another. Seems to me the CO2 emission ought to be pretty proportional to the amount of energy released? Again my chemistry is too rusty for this.
Ethanol is a Brasilian solution to a Brasilian problem. I'm not sure it generalises.
Corn ethanol is a US political solution to a US problem. We should seek to minimise damage: there is a level of ethanol which all gasoline could take (5%?) without big switching costs, and the US could simply mandate that across the whole country (thus consuming all the readily available corn ethanol).
It is true that both would release the same amount of CO2, but the net is lower for sugarcane ethanol because the process heat is provided by bagasse, which took up CO2 while it was growing. In the case of gasoline, the process heat is provided by fossil fuels.
However, it is important to realize that diesel to run equipment to grow, transport, and process the sugar cane and additives like chemical fertilizers, pesticides, etc. require fossil fuels and contribute to green house gas emissions. These factors make corn based ethanol far less preferable than sugar cane based ethanol.
Further, the possibility using renewable sources of energy for stationary production facilities, capturing the CO2 and other green house gases, and re-injecting them deep underground could potentially provide a reduction of green house gases to the atmosphere.
Sugar is one of the most highly subsizdized crops, as you note. But Brazil, Cuba and Australia (if I recall correctly) are market-based and Thailand may lift domestic price caps this year, which they should.
I said it is a niche solution. It does not universalize. I don't think Bulgaria should try to grow sugar cane. But it can reach beyond Brazil to most tropical countries.
I was also thinking about Hawai'i, as I used to live there. It used to be a big sugar exporter, but there is no sugar grown there commercialy any longer. They were priced out largely due to labor costs, but now their is also the issue of land costs. I'm wondering what sort of price sugar would have to fetch in order for it to be economic in Hawai'i again.
I guess I just keep coming back to the can versus will issue. Lot's of these alternatives can/could happen. Whether they will or not is another issue.
2 brothers own most of this resource. One was on President Bush's 2000 election committee, one was a heavy contributor to Al Gore ;-). Cuban American family. Billionaires.
I am vague on the details as this article was about 7 years ago-- jump in someone and correct me.
The US government had a scheme to buy them out. I think the sticking point is whether the land then goes back to being Everglades, (and helps preserve the Everglades by not sucking up the water upstream of the Everglades) or (as the State of Florida wants) the land is allocated to developers (which would be even worse for the Everglades than the current position).
So the US is stuck growing sugar cane, at great ecological harm to a significant and unique bioresource (and tourist area), for very low economic value created (this is sugar after all, a pure commodity) because:
- for domestic political reasons the US cannot import Cuban sugar (see Joan Didion's Miami re exile politics and any number of books and articles about the way the embargo actually strengthens Fidel Castro's regime) which would be the cheapest solution
- the US can't get its act together in the face of land development pressure in Florida
The thriller writer Carl Hiassen always said Florida is his most creative source of ideas: you couldn't make some of the stories he writes up.I have referenced Pimentel's work in passing, but have not used him as a reference for any of my results. I think Pimentel did open himself up to some legitimate criticism by using some outdated data, and some ethanol advocacy groups have done a great job of demonizing him. Therefore, they will not listen to anything you have to say if you use his work as the basis of your argument. They will just say "Pimentel has been discredited", and that is that.
In the ethanol issue, I think everyone is biased, either promoters or enemies of biofuels. Pimental, in my opinion, is in the second camp. I see Robert Rapier as an exception.
I appreciate that. I have biases like everyone else, but I try to stay objective. Even when I don't agree with the other side, I want them to have the opportunity to have their voice heard. Jay Hanson told me several months back that he could see that fairness was very important to me, and then he started analyzing my childhood to determine why that might be. :-) But there is a big difference to me in being fair, and allowing the other side to make undisputed points. I will let the other side present their view, but if I disagree with it then I will vigorously challenge it. I think this sort of debate is how people learn and grow, including (or maybe especially) myself.
The problem with Pimental (and Patzek) for the corn-ethanol and soy-diesel interests is not that they use outdated evidence, but that they employ a methodology which produces disagreeable results for said interests. Both Pimental and Patzek are scientists with extensive publications in peer reviewed journals.
We need to be careful when repeating lines about 'outdated
data". Who is making that judgement? On what basis?
For the person not willing to compare rival methodologies, there is always the tried and generally true axiom: He who pays the piper calls the tune.
You can try to appear as unbiased as you wish, but once you take a position against the ethanol boosters, that's it buddy, you're on the 'junk science' list (a list started by consultants to the tobacco industry). Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but demonization is another favourite tool. And it should be resisted.
Yes, peer reviewed and found wanting insofar as their work on EtOh is concerned. http://rael.berkeley.edu/ebamm/FarrellEthanolScience012706.pdf
I note that the first author listed is an advocate of hydrogen cars, boats and the like. Yup.
Farrell et al criticize Pimentel and Patzek for "incorrectly assuming that ethanol coproducts (... such as dried distiller grains) should not be credited with any of the input energy". In part they justify the credits for by-products by saying "Coproducts of ethanol have positive economic value and displace competing products that require energy to make." That requires proof. There are limited markets for those co-products and I've heard that DDG is not good for livestock in large quantities. Those markets may be satisfied with the existing co-products of the making of processed foods from corn. (Not that I think those processed foods are a great gift to humanity.) I expect many of those co-products would have to be discarded. Even natural gas is "flared" in remote oil fields because its marketing is too difficult. Biodiesel enthusiasts seem to be constantly looking for ways to enlarge the market for their pesky co-products.
Farrell et al "corrected" Pimentel and Patzek's model by "dropping extraneous" [parameters] (sic) "e.g., laborer food energy". Here I agree with Pimentel and Patzek. You can't run the process without labor, and thus analyses of both the economics and the energy balance must take that into account. As well as the embedded energy in farm machinery, etc. If they are including what's convenient for them (co-products), and excluding what's not convenient, how are they better than the researchers that they dismiss?
Their conclusions, nominally somewhat supportive of corn ethanol, show that it is very limited in its benefits. First, it only embodies a small amount of renewable (solar) energy, "5 to 26%" they say. It displaces quite a bit of oil, though, they say, because the energy inputs are mainly from natural gas and coal. (See their Fig. 2.) From the point of view of "reducing our reliance on imported oil" that may sound good. But given that North American natural gas extraction is declining and coal too is finite, currently in short supply in the USA, and the worst fuel from the GHG emissions angle, that's not good news. Even they say that their best estimate is a GHG reduction of 13%, with a lot of uncertainty. That depends on the fuel source for ethanol processing, and currently coal in on the rise in that realm.
They say that "policies aimed at reducing environmental externalities in the agricultural sector may result in significantly improved environmental performance of this fuel." I agree with that, in the sense that it is the huge energy inputs of industrial agriculture in the USA that make biofuels a dubious source of energy. Organic agriculture that is low-input and sustainable may produce some kinds of biofuels with a decent net energy gain, but it is questionable whether that can be scaled up to quantities that would have much impact on the fuel used in our high-energy lifestyle. Also, it is more likely that the optimum biofuels within that scenario would be biodiesels from vegetable oils. That still leaves the food-vs-fuel issue unresolved, along with other externalities that they do mention, but exclude from the calculations: soil erosion and the impact on forests.
Farrell et al make the same dubious statement as discussed here before, that gasoline has a negative net energy, or uses more petroleum input than ethanol. And somehow they don't give petroleum refining any credits for its "co-products"...
They say that cellulosic ethanol may have much better net energy than corn ethanol, but concede that that's just theory thus far, as yet to be realized in practice.
Finally, I think that there is no hope that a massive and complicated process that results in a marginal energy gain could maintain an economy and lifestyle formed on the basis of petroleum that has been, in the past, virtually free, in the sense of an EROEI of 20, or 40, or even more.
So is that the only peer-reviewed scientific paper you could find that "debunks" Pimentel and Patzek?
No not at all, in fact this very paper outlines 4 more studies that debunk Patzek and Pimentel and to this day, Patzek refuses to address his erroneous EROEI calculations when confronted.
Furthermore, there's nothing dubious about Farrel's petroleum input statement -ethanol production reduces petroleum usage- which of course is the most important answer to the most important question regarding ethanol production overall.
I'm sorry you have no hope.
www.defendscience.org
However, I don't think anyone has persuasively argued against the assumption that one should include labor and inputs from machinery. That's like saying we should ignore those inputs if we were evaluating the monetary costs of the enterprise. Try that with the SEC and see far how you would get.
If corn yields are outdated, update the Pimental study and see what happens.
This argument wouldn't be worth having except for the fact that the whole process is so heavily subsidized and the fact that the damn auto companies get to fudge their mileage figures when they make their gas guzzlers E85 capable. And, of course, they concentrate on the gas guzzlers and they get the biggest scam for the buck from that.
I wonder if someone at TOD could arrange a full fledged debate on this site between Pimental or Patzek and one or more of their "debunkers".
Now, of course, we alaready had sort of a debate between Robert Rapier and Khosla. I think Khosla lost by default as he seems to have retreated into the EROIE is irrelevant stance.
I guess if I were making millions off this deal, I would tend to think that EROEI was irrelevant, too.
Just as an example, he used unrealistically low corn yields. The data for that were pretty old, which opened him up to criticism from the corn lobby and allowed them to dismiss his work. As I said, it is not really possible to debate Pimentel with a pro-ethanol person. They will just say "He's been discredited." They can point to some of that data he used to support their point, and that's the end of the argument as far as they are concerned.