Stories tagged with "ethanol"

EPA Seeks Comments on 15% Ethanol Blend

The EPA is proposing increasing the maximum amount of ethanol that can be blended into gasoline from 10% to 15%, so that ethanol producers will have a way of increasing the amount of ethanol that can be sold. The comment period for the new rule runs 30 days from April 21, so the time to make comments is in the next few days, before May 21. EPA's decision on the new rule is not expected until December 2009.

The 2009 EIA Energy Conference: Day 1

The Plenary

I covered Energy Secretary Steven Chu's comments in the previous post. Here, I will cover the rest of Day 1. This is not so much a comprehensive summary as it is a collection of observations and things I otherwise found to be interesting. My notes at times are spotty, so if someone was there and feels like this essay contains an error, please let me know.

Following Chu's talk, Professor William Nordhaus of Yale gave a talk entitled Energy and the Macroeconomy. I got called out during his talk, so I missed most of it. What I do remember him arguing is that oil embargoes are completely worthless, because oil is fungible. If Venezuela decided not to sell their oil to the U.S., they would end up selling it to someone else, which would displace some other seller, which at some point would end up with someone else selling it to the U.S. I missed the next point, but Gail the Actuary was there and said "a corollary of this is that there is no point in protecting the US oil and gas industry. We can just buy what we need elsewhere."

The energy efficiency of cars


Chart updated 28 February to take account of this comment from Profbaldwin.

The future of motor vehicles lies in improved efficiency and that is to the left of the gasoline ICE in the chart. That future is electric vehicles powered by high ERoEI renewable electricity.

Some Thoughts on the Obama Energy Agenda from the Perspective of Net Energy

The Obama-Biden comprehensive a New Energy for America Plan is designed to:

  1. Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
  2. Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.
  3. Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.
  4. Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
  5. Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050

The Obama energy agenda focuses on - and these are not mutually exclusive - efficiency, electrification, and the promotion of alternative energy resources. Its five main goals are set up in a way so that success in any one of the five individual areas will reinforce the other 4, helping the overall agenda achieve success. For example, creating 25% of the U.S. electricity production from renewable resources (goal #4) will aid in decreasing the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 80% (goal #5).

The energy agenda is a welcomed change showing a future outlook that is based, at least to some [small] extent, on the physical realities of the natural resource world. However, from the perspective of net energy, some potential problems do exist. My goal here is to discuss some possible shortcomings of the new administrations energy agenda from the perspective of net energy.

An Ethanol Bright Spot

I sometimes have to pause and remind people that I am not anti-ethanol. I think I first made that clear over two years ago with my support for E3 Biofuels' attempt to produce corn ethanol in a more sustainable fashion. They were attempting to create a closed-loop system that minimized fossil fuel inputs into the process, but they ultimately went bankrupt (the move toward sustainability isn't cheap). But politics being what they are, corn ethanol is not going away. So I do appreciate it when efforts are made to push the process toward higher sustainability. I believe corn ethanol can be sustainably produced, but probably not on a massive scale. It will also take a radical shift away from the way most corn ethanol is produced today.

What I want to focus on in this essay is one particularly compelling argument for ethanol as a fuel, and to address some common misconceptions. Ethanol has a high octane rating (103), which means it does not easily pre-ignite. This has the potential to translate into higher fuel efficiencies than can be obtained with gasoline – despite ethanol's BTU deficit versus gasoline.

Open Letter on Biofuels

Now is the time when everyone is writing letters to the new Obama administration. It seems like it might be worthwhile discussing a letter written by a group of organizations warning of the dangers of biofuels. The letter can be found at the site of the Global Justice Ecology Project. The statement on the website about this letter says:

Corn and sugar based agrofuels have already come under extreme scrutiny due to their documented contribution to the food crisis, with venture capital investment in these so-called 'first generation biofuels' dropping to zero. The open letter exposes the further problems that will result from the so-called 'second generation' of agrofuels. These problems range from wholesale destruction of the world's rainforests and other sensitive forests, to the forced displacement of entire communities to make way for agrofuel expansion, and the biosafety risks of gambling on novel technologies like Synthetic Biology and genetically engineered trees. The letter also makes clear that agrofuels made from inedible plant feedstocks (cellulosic fuels) will continue to exacerbate the food crisis by monopolizing additional agricultural lands for the growing of agrofuel crops such as grasses and trees, instead of food crops.

The Effect of Natural Gradients on the Net Energy Profits from Corn Ethanol

Scaling biofuels from the level of the laboratory or pilot-plants to commercial production is the Achilles’ Heel of almost all biofuels. One major problem is that biofuels use feedstocks that are invariably less energy dense than their fossil fuel counterparts. For example, there are approximately 45 MJ per kilogram contained in both the finished product of gasoline and crude oil, while ethanol has an energy density of about 26 MJ per kilogram and corn has only 16 MJ per kilogram. In general, this means that large amounts of corn must be grown and harvested to equal even a small portion of our gasoline consumption on an energy equivalent level, which will undoubtedly expand the land area that is impacted by the production process of corn-based ethanol.





Figure 1. Map of the optimal gradient space for the production of corn-based ethanol within the United States. Colors correspond to EROI numbers listed in the figure caption. The grey areas represent locations without a significant amount of corn-production.

New Cabinet Position-"Energy and the Environment"?

Last night on the Change.gov website, the major 'categories' for the transition administration included the usual headings: 'Commerce', 'Defense', 'Education', etc. But there was a curious entry in the list: "Energy and the Environment", (which is no longer there). My eyes expected to see "Energy" and "Environment" under separate headings. (Todays listing of cabinet positions is now identical to the current admininistrations.) But for a brief, heart pounding moment, I thought this might be a sneak preview into a sea change in the way policy leaders see the world, one unified Cabinet position, linking two critically interconnected areas, Energy and the Environment. I expect it was a snafu, or I misunderstood what I was seeing. As such, this brief post is not about advocating or predicting such a cabinet position will emerge. But as we go forward in these challenging Liebigs Law times, such a cabinet position might be the first step in recognition both of limits, and of the wide boundary impacts of our internalize profits / externalize costs social system. Of course there are risks with such a union...

The Immediate Fuel Supply - Thoughts for a New Administration

One of the considerable differences between the ongoing financial problems of the world, and the coming energy crisis lies in the nature of the commodity of concern. In the first case the problem focuses around money, though not really the physical and tangible cash that one uses less and less to pay for groceries, the rent, or the occasional book. The US has already transitioned to a point that more than half the time we use credit and debit cards to pay the bill. (The quote is from a year ago)

As debit card and credit card purchases become increasingly popular, check and cash payments continue to lose out. These traditional payment methods now account for less than half of all transactions, and a recent rule change by the Federal Reserve Board should tilt the balance even further away from paper transactions and toward plastic payments.

As a result, for the vast majority of us who do not keep our money in the mattress, financial solvency and insolvency is defined by electronic statements about the nature of our accounts, without there being a pile of gold sitting in the bank to define it. And, when the banks and other companies holding such accounts get into trouble, loans can and have been arranged for them, that are similarly electronic transactions, without large trucks pulling up at either Fort Knox, where 147.3 million ounces currently sit, or to the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, that holds about 216 million ounces. Rather the transactions occur electronically, and there is relatively little need for the physical presence of the cash.

Contrast that with the realities of an energy crisis. We cannot heat our homes with the promises of oil, or the electronic transfer of ownership of fragments of a tanker load making its way from Ras Tanura to the Gulf ports. We need the physical presence of the oil, natural gas or wood that we will consume. When we run out, we need to get some more.

Cutting Through the Coskata Cellulosic Ethanol Hype

I have a strong distaste for companies or individuals who overpromise and underdeliver. Changing World Technologies (CWT) and their thermal depolymerization (TDP) technology is probably the poster child for companies that promised lots and delivered little. The hype was that they had the "technological savvy" to "turn 600 million tons of turkey guts and other waste into 4 billion barrels of light Texas crude each year." Further, they were going to "make oil for $8 to $12 a barrel." (See TDP: The Next Big Thing).

Of course as time went by, the hype unraveled. But not before the hype resulted in CWT getting earmarks for building their plant (money that went down the drain as documented here) as well as a tax credit inserted by Missouri Congressman Roy Blunt to specifically benefit CWT. That money came out of the pockets of American taxpayers, and could have been better utilized. But it was hijacked by CWT and their overpromises.

These are the sorts of implications that cause me to be very skeptical of companies that make seemingly far-fetched claims. I don't want technologies receiving legal and tax benefits because of hollow boasts. This is also the reason I have been critical in my assessments of some of the cellulosic ethanol claims made by ethanol evangelists like Vinod Khosla.