E85: Spinning Our Wheels
Posted by Robert Rapier on May 24, 2006 - 12:01pm
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: e85, energy policy, ethanol, politics [list all tags]
"President Bush and other elected officials have called for a greater expansion of E-85, a fuel made of 85 percent ethanol that can be used in vehicles built to run on both regular unleaded gasoline and E-85. E-85 is currently available in less than one percent of the country's gas stations, and Clinton wants to accelerate the spread of the fuel to half of the nation's gas stations by 2015 by offering a 50 percent tax credit for station owners who install ethanol pumps.`We've got to take action on this pump issue or we're just spinning our wheels,' she said."
According to http://www.corn.org/CRAR2005.PDF (Warning: 1.9 meg file) the estimated corn harvest in 2005 was 10.35 billion bushels, and corn exports were 1.95 billion bushels. According to the 2002 USDA study Estimating the Net Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol, you can get 2.7 gallons of ethanol from a bushel of corn. That means if we turned the entire corn crop into ethanol, we could make 27.9 billion gallons of ethanol. But as we all know, the BTU value of ethanol is around 67% that of gasoline, meaning that on a BTU basis this much ethanol is equivalent to 18.8 billion gallons of gasoline.
According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, our annual gasoline consumption is up to almost 140 billion gallons. That means on a BTU equivalent basis, converting the entire corn crop into ethanol would amount to 13.4% of our annual gasoline demand. Putting all of that ethanol into the gasoline supply would mean ethanol could comprise 19% of the gasoline supply on a volumetric basis (while consuming all of our corn production). In other words, all of the gasoline in the country could be E19 if we wanted to use 100% of the corn crop. Of course if we only want to turn all of our current exports into ethanol (ignoring the many implications), that would amount to 2.5% of our annual gasoline demand. In that case, E10 could make up about a third of our gasoline supply on a volumetric basis. If we want to convert all of the corn exports into E85, it could make up 3.3% of our total gasoline pool.
But that's the good news. According to the previously mentioned USDA study, it takes 77,228 BTUs of fossil fuel inputs to make 83,961 BTUs of "green, renewable" ethanol. Ignoring co-products for a moment, that means the created energy was a mere 8% in excess of the input energy. Given that the fossil fuels (primarily natural gas) that went into making the ethanol can usually serve as transportation fuels, the amount of transportation fuel that is displaced is only the 8% that was "created". That means that in reality, using our entire corn crop would only displace 1% of our annual gasoline consumption. If we only decide to use our exports, the net displacement of gasoline would be 0.2% of our annual gasoline consumption.
Now, a word about co-products. Energy balance studies of grain ethanol almost always include a BTU credit for the co-products (mostly animal feed). I think this is appropriate, provided that a proper analysis is made of the energy inputs into the products that were displaced. Let's ignore for a moment the fact that some estimates indicate that the "byproduct markets could saturate well short of 11 billion gallons of production". Let's give full credit for the byproducts, just as if they are liquid fuels to be burned. This has no effect on the BTU equivalent calculation, but will affect the displacement calculation. With by-products included, the USDA report has 77,228 BTUs of fossil fuel inputs for 98,333 BTUs of total outputs. In this best case scenario, the ratio of energy out/energy in is 1.27. Converting 100% of the corn crop into ethanol, presuming we had a market for the byproducts, would then displace an incredible 2.0% of our annual gasoline consumption.
So, why the big rush to get E85 pumps at 50% of the nation's gas stations? We can't possibly produce enough E85 to justify putting in all those pumps. Wouldn't it be much better just to push for E10 at more locations? In that case, expensive new pumps are not required, and E10 can already be burned in most vehicles on the road. Or how about encouraging more natural gas vehicles, instead of inefficiently and expensively turning natural gas into ethanol? But I suppose those would be rational solutions, as opposed to feel-good solutions that promise energy independence.
* Acknowledgment
This post was inspired by comments made by Odograph.
Excellent post as always.
Can I suggest we all copy an past this as an email to our legislators?
Matt
though i would suspect they have at least one good anti-spam filter that also weeds out most of those emails.
it would be better if you take this, print it out and snail mail it to your reps and have everyone you know do the same.
I performed a very similar, back of the napkin analysis on the same issue years ago (right after the 2002 USDA study came out), and came to very much the same conclusions (as you probably have been able to tell).
Simple mathematics, combined with published and documented research, leads us to this inescapible and quite honestly, common sense conclusion: Ethanol from corn as a replacement for gasoline is a joke. A cruel one, at that.
This push for "E85, everywhere!" is yet another smokescreen for a poorly though out plan to put tax dollars in the pockets of ADM and Cargill, sell more obsolete, heavy, and inefficient GM made vehicles, and raise food prices.
Westtexas's 'Iron Triangle', of course, supports the notion completely. Anything to distract us, the unthinking populace, from the real and inconvienent problems at hand.
RR
Kudos to you: a Cassandra of E85 Truth!
A few basic questions that should be put to all Pres. candidates are:
1. Since we have past the peak in food output and drastically reduced food aid to starving children worldwide, shouldn't we be rebuilding future American grain inventories here at home versus burning it in our E85 SUVs?
http://www.fas.usda.gov/excredits/FoodAid/FoodAid101_files/frame.htm
- Since milgov policy is to concentrate the E85 benefits and diffuse the costs to the taxpayer: what is your projected E85 subsidy tipping point when postPeak American starvation outweighs the E85 elite profits?
- How fast does our switching to ERoEI-weak E85 'energy slaves' accelerate the growth of future American manual labor 'wage slaves'; i.e. Westexas's college grads and illegals laboring together in the farm fields?
- If global warming and acquifer depletion result in American Dustbowl conditions will you volunteer yourself and your offspring to a daily regimen of pedaling a bicycle-powered water pump?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/experimental/edb/lbfinal.gifBob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Here's something I've been thinking about a lot in a post-peak world:
I have a 120-acre farm/ranch that could eventually be broken up into smaller micro-farms for families -- say 10 or 15 acres. I've even considered the idea of selling "turn-key permaculture farmettes."
But would it be better keep the land in one piece and hire people to help work it when conventional fuel becomes too expensive.
I recognize the possibility the milgov will simply sieze the farm and do what they want with it, but I'm trying to be an agro-optimist about this.
What would you do?
My preference would be a leaving a small sustenance farm for myself and putting the rest in wildlife refuge, but I have an ethical quandary about providing for wildlife while people starve.
I am a life-long city boy with no farming experience--so this advice is probably wrong--you would know better than I.
Hiring help gives you greater control, but they will abandon you when times get tough. Selling farmettes offers a chance for better security, community, defensibility, and teamwork because your neighbors will be heavily invested and committed to the land.
Evaluating true sustainability where you include the surrounding wildlife and their habitat requirements is beyond my ability, perhaps some US Parks & Wildlife Game Management textbooks would be a good starting resource. I would not feel guilty about your ethical quandary trying to save other lifeforms [Noah's Ark]-- it takes all life to make the world go round.
The Overshoot condition will bring plenty of starving people to loot your farm, no matter if you subdivide or not--that is not your fault. Your job is to save the very last tomato, potato, rutabaga, and parsnip if you can. Any deer, elk, pine tree and birch that you helped to grow will have to take its chances at that time, but if you and your neighbors have created sufficient quantities--some will escape to survive.
My advice is to spread the Peakoil Outreach to your existing neighbors, hopefully building a small core into an ever larger biosolar habitat that can generate sufficient surplus real wealth. WTSHTF, hopefully your group can hire a company of real crack snipers from Blackwater Security to patrol the perimeter. This should work fine as long as the meals hold out-- recall my earlier post. You and your farming neighbors may have to work twice as hard as these Earthmarines, but you won't have to kill anybody, and you and your neighbors will be the ones getting a decent night's rest.
Soldiers make very poor farmers, see my Zimbabwe post. They will be thrilled if you feed them. Dogs of War viciously defend their food bowls. I think this symbiosis seems logical as the best way to defend 'land lifeboats'. My two cents--your mileage may vary.
John Robb, former Special Forces member, now of Global Guerrilla blog fame, can probably elaborate further or soundly refute what I am saying is the best course. I suggest you email him:
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/about.html
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Thxs for responding. I never said this would be easy. Yes, it is quite likely that the Earthmarines will become the eventual feudal masters, but they should be smart enough to realize that it will be counter-productive to kill the hand that feeds them. Far better to maintain an outward defensive focus until the invasive threat subsides.
As Ted Koppel speculates: [see LATOC news & upates for this essential article] it is far more likely that large biosolar habitats will arise from the profit-oriented drive of international consortiums meeting detritus entropy. The '3 Days of the Condor' scenario run to its max. profit REAL BIOSOLAR WEALTH conclusion. Consider: biosolar 'Monsantoland', 'GazPromisedLand', 'XOMobiland', etc as inevitable results.
The overriding concern is if the full-on nuclear gift exchange can be avoided-- a big IF-- but corporate powers, which transcend geographic borders, will do their best to prevent this because noone profits.
In my mind, it is easy to forsee corporate IPOs where the farmers pledge their land & labor in exchange for inclusion into the creation of large and distinct corporate biosolar habitats whereby the corps' accumulated wealth is used to optimize and expand sustainability. 'Cargilland', for example, could quickly arise in the American Heartland to stem the massive throngs leaving the denuded Southwest, similar to the Gretna sheriffs preventing Nawlins residents from crossing the freeway bridge. It is only logical, as the first order of business, is to prevent the swamping of a 'land lifeboat'. Corp entities can finance and equip Earthmarines far longer than the disassociated and disorganized detritovores caught in entropic decline.
Once a distinct habitat is created, a similar project to Zimbabwe's "Taking out the Trash" can be commenced to outsource any non-additive economic drags. Sad. =(
But I would prefer wholesale mitigation and cooperation to all of the above. Hopefully an astounding breakthrough will come out of the upcoming G8 Energy Security conference. Time will tell.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
? An odd conclusion. How good are lawyers, engineers, professors and bloggers?
Blackwater shooters get paid 750$ a day. If one of these guys wants your food they have the weapons and will to do it. You'd be better of marrying your daughters to guys like this and hoping they can farm.
ask your Dr. about lithium
Then they try it themselves, not realizing the material isn't really funny, and wonder why no one's laughing but themselves.
I suspect I'm not alone. Oilrig Medic is himself a blogger and ex-soldier. =P
Historically speaking (Carthage, Rome, Greek city states, etc), mercenaries are pretty lousy soldiers, except under certain circumstances. Lack of motivation (beyond personal profit) being key.
My point about engineers/bloggers/lawyers etc is very few of us know how to farm and those of us that do have never had to its has only been supplemental.
If my lithium comment offended anyone I apologize. I was joking that the Earthmarine/detrivore concept is sci-fi delusional and obscures an otherwise positive message.
But I suspect most of us may get to try our hand at it at some point in the future.
The point of security home personal or other wise is not to be an easy target. Make the bad guys go after the weaker part of the herd.
Most of the US supplemental gardening is easy. I suspect a PO crisis will be slow enough to allow us to learn how to farm.
More later...but very respectfully TG80 sends
Thxs for responding. I profoundly agree with your points, but I see where the brevity of my posts can sometimes misconvey the wrong info.
I have had earlier discussions with other Blackwater Associates in the Yahoo:AlasBabylon forum. I have no doubts as to your ability to assimilate into a biosolar lifestyle, probably easier that most of us. But your unique skill specialization is best optimized, in the early stages, to the outward defensive focus until the invasive threat subsides. The defense of biosolars, so that they can hopefully optimize a surplus unhindered to share with their protectors, is crucial. After that, the beating of most swords into plowshares will be welcomed by all.
Zimbabwean soldiers cannot be compared to modern Special Forces--I regret that some made this connection due to my posting. I was using Mugabe's mismanagement of farming as an illustrative example of the wrong way to build a biosolar community.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
My understanding of history is that the Romans used the promise of farmland as an incentive to be a soldier or centurion. Being fluent in the both ancient Greek and Latin, I can assure you that farming and soldiering were quite intertwined 2000 years ago.
If you want the modern perspective on this, you can watch Gladiator with Russell Crowe.
Ever heard of the Elysian Fields? What do you think those were? Fenway Park? Muslims have their fantasy of 99 black-eyed virgins, or whatever. The Romans liked the idea of growing wheat.
Study of the Thirty Years War will provide a slightly different but oddly similar picture.
Soldiers are good farmers. Soldiers were good farmers. Soldiers can be good farmers. Soldiers are farmers. What am I missing?
Thxs for the historical info addition to the discussion. Any sane soldier would prefer 'No Thanks--I like Empty Tanks' to the alternative. Hopefully, this offers our best chance to avert the '3 Days of the Condor' scenario and will set us on a course of Heinberg's Powerdown. Recall the retired generals reminding the active military staff to re-examine their Pledge to the Constitution, not their willingness to follow Presidential orders. It seems this would be our last chance to avert the worst. I hate it when global forces are left hanging on such a precariously frayed thin string. Yikes!
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
As a process of converting coal to a liquid fuel ethanol makes a little bit more sense, but I suspect a CTL plant would be ultimately a much better idea. Unfortunately all of this hardly matters here; the decision about ethanol is already made - elections are coming and votes from the corn-producing states need to be BrOUGHT.
Unfortunately I can't see CTL as anything but another boondogle, very much like E85.
I recently came across this:
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing_ID=1544&Witn ess_ID=3664
To cut a long story short it is evidence from a mining exec (Marion Loomis) about the fabulous potential of CTL given to a US Senate committee.
Unfortunately if you use his figures on CTL (I assume being from a miner they are, if anything, optimistic) and then add in US coal mining stats you come to some pretty disappointing conclusions about CTL.
Basically if you convert the entire US daily production of coal (around 2.7 million short tons) into oil it yields about 1.9 million barrels of "liquid" (to use his term) a day.
The US currently consumes around 22 million bpd of the genuine article.
The investment needed to build enough CTL plants to accomplish this (according to Marion) is 1.23 trillion US dollars. This does not include the investment needed to double US coal production to replace all the coal now being fed to CTL plants. I have no figures to work it out but if someone knows the worth (market capitalisation - would that be a fair estimate?) of the US coal mining industry maybe they could let us know so we can add it to our 1.23 trillion dollar estimate.
But anyway - if US coal mining or imports of coal were greatly increased and the investment for CTL could be found then we could use that synthetic oil to grow corn to make into ethanol!!!
Why not just use the synthetic oil to make syndiesel in the first place?
It's seems crazy to me, but then again they are already pouring out tons and tons of processed natural gas onto the fields to grow corn to make ethanol when it could also be made into syndiesel, so why should we expect a more sensible use of coal?
bados
2.7 million short tons of coal yields around 3.8 million barrels of 'liquid'.
About 17% of US daily consumption.
Even though that is double what I stated above, I still don't think that changes the substance of the argument.
CTL is a false hope. And it is still crazy to use synthetic oil made from coal to make fertilizer to grow corn to make ethanol.
bados
Now 3.8 mln.bpd is a whole 38% of 10mln.bpd. And 1.3 trillion over 20 years is 65 billion per year. Sounds too far from insignificant or impossible, doesn't it?
Don't get me wrong - I agree that CTL will not be a panacea. But compared to our current consumption any technology looks like a drop in the bucket. Taken separately you have to rule them all out one by one. The only reasonable path to take is the combination of them, and CTL will most certainly be one of them.
22x^20 = 10;
x = e^(ln(10/22)/20) =~ 0.96 .
Can coal mining really double in the next 20 years while oil consumption is halved?
.7 tons of coal = 1 barrel of 'liquid'
Unless that ratio can be improved or massive investment for new coal mines is found to go along with massive investment in CTL, CTL will provide only a small amount of future liquid fuel requirements.
I can't see it providing any more than a few hundred million barrels per year. But every little bit helps. And I agree taking these things in isolation is pointless. The future will be a grab bag of all sorts of energy sources.
bados