# Interesting article on Ethanol



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

ALBANY, N.Y - Farmers, businesses and state officials are investing millions of dollars in ethanol and biofuel plants as renewable energy sources, but a new study says the alternative fuels burn more energy than they produce.

Supporters of ethanol and other biofuels contend they burn cleaner than fossil fuels, reduce U.S. dependence on oil and give farmers another market to sell their produce.

But researchers at Cornell University (search) and the University of California-Berkeley say it takes 29 percent more fossil energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces. For switch grass, a warm weather perennial grass found in the Great Plains and eastern North America United States, it takes 45 percent more energy and for wood, 57 percent.

It takes 27 percent more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel and more than double the energy produced is needed to do the same to sunflower plants, the study found.

"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, the economy, or the environment," according to the study by Cornell's David Pimentel and Berkeley's Tad Patzek. They conclude the country would be better off investing in solar, wind and hydrogen energy.

The researchers included such factors as the energy used in producing the crop, costs that were not used in other studies that supported ethanol production, said Pimentel.

The study also omitted $3 billion in state and federal government subsidies that go toward ethanol production in the United States (search) each year, payments that mask the true costs, Pimentel said.

Ethanol is an additive blended with gasoline to reduce auto emissions and increase gas' octane levels. Its use has grown rapidly since 2004, when the federal government banned the use of the additive MTBE to enhance the cleaner burning of fuel. About 3.6 billion gallons of ethanol were produced last year in the United States, according to the Renewable Fuels Association, an ethanol trade group.

The ethanol industry claims that using 8 billion gallons of ethanol a year will allow refiners to use 2 billion fewer barrels of oil. The oil industry disputes that, saying the ethanol mandate would have negligible impact on oil imports.

Ethanol producers dispute Pimentel and Patzek's findings, saying the data is outdated and doesn't take into account profits that offset costs.

Michael Brower, director of community and government relations at SUNY's College of Environmental Science and Forestry, points to reports by the Energy and Agriculture departments that have shown the ethanol produced delivers at least 60 percent more energy the amount used in production. The college has worked extensively on producing ethanol from hardwood trees.

Biodiesel can be used in any diesel engine with few or no modifications. It is often blended with petroleum diesel to reduce the propensity to gel in cold weather.


----------



## muskat (Mar 5, 2002)

Im not contending the validity of this study, but it sure would be nice to see some numbers....ie Energy (BTU's) required to convert corn to ethanol (1 gallon) versus the BTU's in one gallon of ethanol.

The addition of costs associated with the agriculture side of corn production should not be included.

Or, I should say, I need clarification as I am uneducated in this part of the study. Do farmers specifically grow corn for ethanol production, or is it a way that they are able to sell corn that they would have planted anyway?

If this was a crop that was going to be raised, whether or not ethanol production was in place, then the ag side of the study needs to be dismissed.

Someone please enlighten me.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> If this was a crop that was going to be raised, whether or not ethanol production was in place, then the ag side of the study needs to be dismissed.


Good questions muskat. They will need to raise more corn. Even if they didn't you can't just dismiss a real energy expenditure from the formula, it just isn't statistically valid.

I can't give you a reference off the top of my head, but the literature I have read states from 1.2 gallons to as much as 1.4 gallons of fuel to produce each gallon of ethanol ( I would prefer to see this in total units of energy which I think would be even greater). Then we must also throw into that equation that ethanol has somewhere around 80 percent the energy of petroleum products. Ethanol has the least energy, then gasoline, then diesel.

So why do people push it so hard. Because it means money for the farm industry. However many people concerned about the environment push it not realizing that it is a loosing proposition. They say it burns cleaner without taking into account the pollution it causes to produce it. You must add the pollution from production to the pollution of burning ethanol for total outputs of hydrocarbons.

Ethanol isn't an environmental friendly product, or a petroleum independence solution. As a matter of fact it is self defeating for both. Many politicians are for it especially in the agriculture states. Even in North Dakota where we have democrats in Washington. The party that is for cleaner and greener??????? As long as the public remains ignorant and it looks good to them the politicians will push it. They push it because it makes them look good back home, and look good is what they are concerned about more than what is the right thing to do. It's not all their fault though, it is what to many of us expect of them. Bring us a buck back home at all cost, but clean up those other states.


----------



## muskat (Mar 5, 2002)

If more corn will be produced, then yes fuel costs associated with corn production need to be added to the formula.

However, I still feel it is like double dipping if the corn being produced right now would be sufficient for ethanol production. This would be cost that would not be in addition to the production of ethanol. Of course I have no background in accounting practices, so this may just be the way I perceive the situation.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Muskat

Look at it this way. If the corn that is being produced now is being used what happens when much of it is turned to ethanol. The demand will remain so more corn must be grown. It doesn't work like you driving to the grocery store for milk and saying I might as well pick up bread it doesn't add to my cost of travel to the store. There is a price for each bushel of corn grown, it matters not what it will be used for. The cost in money and time may vary, but the cost in energy will remain stable unless new technology intervenes. Also, it isn't simply the cost of growing the corn, or producing the ethanol, or the lower energy output of ethanol, it is the cost benefit ratio where ethanol looses.


----------



## muskat (Mar 5, 2002)

That was my initial question........is the product (corn) that is created right now sufficient for ethanol production AND able to sustain the current demand in other markets, or will more product need to be created.

And yes, it is the cost benefit ratio where ethanol looses, in this study. Previous studies (which were invalid due to inaccuracies with what we are currently agreeing on, due to the fact more corn has to be produced) there was not a significant difference.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Racer I'm not trying to out you nor am I saying you are part of any organized plot against anything but for the sake of argument would you please tell those in this forum what you do for a living. I think its relevant to the topic. Damm I hate to sound like a lawyer, I think your a good guy.

The study you mention is over 3 years old. I took the liberty of looking up the study and not looking for media articles about it, I compared news articles to the study and related studies. news is often not completly acurate. After pasting what you posted into a search I'd say you got it from yahoo? am I wrong? Several other media sources come up but have much more info from the same source. Even news filled with facts can be twisted to sound one way or the other. I would suggest people look at the follwing links and look into the work of Dr David Pimentel. I'm not sayingv he is in the pockets of oil or anything like that, much of his work talks about the pending oil crisis, this didn't come up in the Yahoo article why? Once people are armed with information then they can make an informed decision.

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/pimentel/bio ... vation.pdf

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/pimentel/renewable.htm

http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/Pimentel_98-2.pdf

I do think bio diesel holds much more promise than ethonal, and no one is going to argue we need to think about energy that has no pollution what so ever but its not possible yet. Look at the potential for wind energy here in ND plenty of wind. The problem is no method of getting the energy from point a to b, we don't have the transmission lines to do it.

I still think we need to work on our dependance on traditional energy sources, or we will all be trading in our suv's for wagons and some good horses.

TC


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

This information came from N.D. Department of Commerce so someone else will have to tell me if it can be trusted or not.

Myth: It takes more energy to produce ethanol than it contributes.

Fact: Fact is, corn plants efficiently collect and store energy, so for every 100 BTUs of energy used to produce ethanol, 135 BTUs of ethanol are produced. In addition, ethanol facilities are extremely energy efficient.

Myth: Ethanol production wastes corn that could be used for food.

Fact: In 2001, U.S. farmers produced 9.5 billion bushels of corn and only 600 million bushels are currently used in ethanol production. Fact is, there's no shortage of corn, and the ethanol market could expand significantly without negatively impacting its availability. Besides, ethanol production uses field corn, most of which is fed to livestock, not humans. Only the starch portion of the corn kernel is used to produce ethanol. The vitamins, minerals, proteins and fiber are converted to other products such as sweeteners, corn oil and high-value livestock feed, which helps livestock producers add to the overall food supply.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gohon

The article I read accounted for the energy in producing fertilizer, chemical pesticides, and nearly every aspect of energy consumption related to the production. Even in areas like Iowa with it's high production they can not meet the energy cost benefit ratio.

The ground will be planted to something anyway, so I am not concerned about environmental factors, what bothers me is I think it will make us even more dependent on oil countries. I will search for the articles I have read and try pass on some information.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Last year we used all but 2% of the corn produced world wide. This article falls in line with what our own Government Accounting Office has said about ethanol. I am not anti ethanol from a point of providing a stable pricing roll for corn, but I am against the promotion of ethanol as a alternative to fossil fuel and lowering our dependency on foreign oil.

Muskat if the crop is going to be grown anyway what basically does it matter, to paraphrase? Soybeans,corn or any other crop is mother nature dependent. Currently ND and SD are looking at good to excellent crops, but other regions of the nation are looking at drought and crop failures. Look at the commodity prices for corn and soybean futures and it tells the tale that we do not have surplus commodities at low prices which are needed to make ethanol a cost effective fuel.

This means that Farmer Jones will take that extra $7-10.00 an acre the demand and prices dictate for his land instead of leaving it in conservation acres like CRP as an example! That is one reason, the next is the environmental impact to the regions it is produced. The huge amount of water needed is staggering, couple that with the loss of grass lands and we will see a spike in air pollution and our lands will become even more susceptible to flooding. Then look at the lost filtration of the grass lands in recharging our aquifers. It all spells disaster.

Ethanol is the biggest threat to wetlands,wildlife,water quality,air quality that we face today. One needs to think back to our physics classes on perpetual motion. Gravity prevents any machine or product from producing more energy than it consumes. The cost of transportation,fertilizer,weed control etc need to be added into the cost of production. The reason is that those resources could have been used for other petroleum based products, thus driving the cost of those products up.

This is a simple matter of fact, that no study except for the one sponsored by the Corn Growers has ever shown anything more than a 1 to 1 BTU ratio from ethanol. The corn growers study only did this by adding the solar gain into the mix. Yet they discount the solar gain that was necessary to produce the plant material that creates oil!

Many want to believe that ethanol is our savior especially when it gets them votes, but reality and the studies tell us otherwise. No politician has yet to answer these questions, nor do the promoters of ethanol, they instead try and spin the issue into one of economic gain, and clean air when it is burned. They do not want to talk about the fact that ethanol will burn cleaner than gas, but actually creates more pollutants from the chemicals needed to raise corn, the diesel burned from transportation and raising of the crops, or from the electricity that is generated from coal.

ND and SD being thinly populated now become the dumping ground for the pollutants instead of the places that are consuming the gas, like the Twin Cites,Chicago or the eastern sea board and west coast.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

After reading all that is posted here I can't help but feel the need to remind you guys you can't grow oil, you can grow new corn, soy beans what have you. Maybe we will need electric tractors but 40 years from now I doubt you will see a freshly planted field of crude oil. If you don't think an electric tractor is possible, train lococmotinves run on diesel that powers a generator that then powers electric drive motors that turn the wheels.

TC


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Well I guess the recent article has stirred the waters again with opinion articles in the Forum today. Both are refusing to look at the science of ethanol and the reality of it!

TC while we can grow corn and beans, and not oil, you like so many others miss the fact that it is not new energy that is being produced. It simply is a re manufacturing of an existing energy source.

To understand this a little better

Energy required to to produce 100 BTU's is 100 BTU's or more! Thus no gain in energy!

It is that simple and straight forward. No gray area, no magic in a bottle of corn syrup. Promote ethanol as a way of stabilizing pricing and providing a fuel source that burns cleaner for congested urban area's is fine. Do not tout it as a national security issue, or a product that can be used to lessen our need for fossil fuels because it is not!!!!!!!!!!

The Cornell study that was sited in the paper today is not 25 year old science. In fact ethanol is one of the most studied products today. Without Government subsidy of this product we would not have a single plant being built. Since the cost of the product is higher than fossil fuels and it needs cheap commodity prices to even be remotely competitive.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Ron I totally understand what you are saying, the debate started to take a turn into the growing of crops instead of energy put in to growing crops, you did a good job of expaining that but it was lost by some. Changing public demand is a difficult thing to do the fact of the matter is we will run out of oil and not to far in the future. This presents a huge opportunity for some while some dred the thought. Sticking our head in the sand surely isn't the solution. We need to view this as an oppurtunity and not continue to compain about the sky falling.

Dr Pimentel talks of tapping other energy sources which I agree with 100%. Take wind for instance, Who stands in the way wind energy? Nobody. Now Who stands in the way of using existing transmission lines to transport the elcrticity created by wind? Now someone please correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the coal burning power plants along with their tranmission lines here in ND created with a subsidy or some form of public money? If this is true how can they dare stand in the way of using these lines for the good of the public? like I said please correct me If I'm wrong I'm just starting to look into this.

TC


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

If you look at the energy consumption in ethanol production I believe it takes more petroleum to produce a gallon of ethanol. This makes us more energy dependent. This accounts for transportation of fertilizer, farm chemicals, and application of them. It looked at all aspects of where gasoline or diesel would be used to produce ethanol. It does nothing but subsidize agriculture for a loosing proposition.

I agree on the power line thing. People are trying to stop use of a federally subsidized electrical corridor.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Yes I do work in the oil and gas industry, more on the natural gas side, I am all for alternative fuel as I understand that we will need them. I have heard arguments for and against ethanol, I still personally don't know what to think, it seems like nobody will give a straight answer on costs. As you can see TC I don't have a dog in this fight one way or another, my point in posting this article was hopefully somebody can give me a clear answer with out BS. I didn't get the article off of Yahoo, I don't remember where I pulled it from, one of the major news sites, it appeared to me that it showed both arguments with still no answer.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Here is a dumb question that struck me last night... If ethanol was really a cheap and efficient source of energy, why do we need to provide incentives to produce it?

It would seem to me that if ethanol was truly efficient, we would have to stop people from building more plants, not providing incentives to build more. Where are the free market forces?


----------



## muskat (Mar 5, 2002)

After doing a couple of days of research on this subject (I wasnt informed at all), it seems that ethanol is not and should not be considered an alternative fuel source. Like many have stated, it takes more fossil fuels to produce ethanol than the actual energy that is produced by burning it.

The only benefits that I can see from ethanol is lower emmissions, a higher octane rating (which really means nothing), a slight increase in HP, and the fact that it acts like an anti-freeze in your gas lines (for those really cold ND days).

Downfalls include a drastic decrease in gas mileage (due to its lower energy content), and an increased dependence on fossil fuels. These are some big hitters.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

I am not a big fan of ethanol, for lots of reasons. But our government continues to promote products such as these in an attempt to artificially stimulate the economy, do lip service to those who would have us drop emissions levels (another fantasy, if you burn more fuel to travel the same distance), and in some cases, give small towns and farmers hope for the future. I think it's sad. But I'll bet that when the CRP starts to go away in SW ND, that there won't be too much doubt about what crop will go into those acres. Corn is great food for wildlife, but is grown best in "clean" field conditions. What will happen to the great economic boost the areas have seen from their burgeoning pheasant population at that time? The small town of Richardton, ND is all excited about the ethanol project going up there. Granted, their economy will see a temporary boost, maybe enough for the next ten years or so, but will it continue? Will the locals be happy about the trade offs involved? In what I have read of the project, I have seen no mention of the odors that are emitted by these plants. The Richardton plant site is virtually on the edge of city limits and regardless of the prevailing wind direction, they're not going to like the smell. It's hard to rain on someone's parade, particularly when their town continues to deteriorate from lack of economic activity, but I honestly can't see the government continuing to support these projects, and products, when said products are so obviously not achieving their advertised goals. But stranger things, and bigger wastes of taxpayer dollars have happened before, and will no doubt happen again. As someone once said, it ain't over 'til it's over. Burl


----------



## the_rookie (Nov 22, 2004)

if soybean ethonal is going to temparily bring the gas prices down till scientists find a new way for energy then so be it


----------



## pjb1816 (Sep 8, 2003)

What does everyone think of hydrogen power as a source for cars?

From what I have heard this is said to be the "next big thing" in a fuel source for passenger vehicles. (while biodiesel would be used in trucks?)

We know the technology exists and works because there is a small deployment of government vehicles in california that use hydrogen as a fuel source. So it seems that the only thing stopping hydrogen fuel cell cars from being sold in new vehicles is two things:
1) Major oil corporations
2) An infrastructure to support the fueling of these vehicles

-- or are they still trying to perfect this technology?


----------

