Ethanol: The Truth
 

What I've long suspected. It takes more energy to produce "renewable" fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel than you get from them. So...we end up burning MORE fossil fuels to make these...

For some reason, a hyperlink won't work. If I cut and past the following URL, it should:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ethanol_study;_ylt=AiBR4jMsTzcnLOtNc28aKGis0NUE;_y lu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

I understand what you're saying, and there are some forms of fuel that take more energy to produce than they create. Hydrogen, for example. But biodiesel is not this way. It will become incorporated into our fuel supply system, and already has, and it will add many more BTU's than it costs. There are those who would have you believe that these sources are terribly inefficient, but in some cases those reports are not entirely candid. The link didn't work for me but again, we will make fuel from stuff we grow in the ground, and it will be cost-efficient. Already is.

Here it is:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8607389/


"Research shows ethanol isn't worth the energy
Study: Production doesn't aid security, agriculture, economy, environment"

"ALBANY, N.Y. - Farmers, businesses and state officials — including many in Nebraska — 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 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 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.

This year, Nebraska's 11 ethanol plants are expected to produce more than 500 million gallons of ethanol.

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."

I "renew" my fuel supply every week at the China Coast restaurant. They are happy to get rid of it, and may even let me keep my filtration setup behind their restaurant.

crap, there goes the price of corn.

I spoke at the National Renders Assoc meeting not long ago. Had someone from the ag dept taking about bio-diesel. To date, with the gov subs, it barely breaks even. This really is volume related. If more was processed and the engineering was tighter the price would go down but the only way for that to occur is for more volume to be bought (or speculated that it will be bought). Catch 22?

http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/main/energy.htm

National Corn Growers Association
Last reviewed June 10, 2005

Ethanol Production: A Net Energy Winner

There is clearly no doubt that fuel ethanol contains more energy than it takes to produce.

In June 2004, the U.S. Department of Agriculture updated its 2002 analysis of the issue and determined that the net energy balance of ethanol production is 1.67 to 1. (For every 100 BTUs of energy used to make ethanol, 167 BTUs of ethanol is produced.) In 2002, USDA had concluded that the ratio was 1.35 to 1.

The USDA findings have been confirmed by additional studies conducted by the University of Nebraska and Argonne National Laboratory. In fact, since 1995, nine independent studies found ethanol has a positive net energy balance, while only one study – which used outdated data – found the energy balance to be negative.

A Michigan State University study (2002) found that ethanol produced from corn provided 56 percent more energy than is consumed during production (1.56 to 1). This study looked at producing ethanol from both dry and wet milling of corn—and included corn grain production, soybean products from soybean milling and urea production.

These studies take into account the entire life cycle of ethanol production—from the energy used to produce and transport corn to the energy used to produce ethanol to the energy used in the distribution of ethanol in gasoline.

What’s behind this continual increase in net energy balance?

Production efficiency is one factor. Compared to just five years ago, today’s ethanol plants produce 15 percent more ethanol from a bushel of corn—and using 20 percent less energy in the process.

The energy efficiency of American farmers is another reason. According to USDA statistics, U.S. agriculture uses about half the energy to produce a unit of output today than was needed to produce the same output in 1950.

Better corn varieties, improved production practices and conservation measures also figure into the equation. A 1 percent increase in corn yield raises the net energy value by 0.37 percent.

It’s also important to note that energy from ethanol is not the only result of ethanol production. Coproducts such as distillers grains, gluten feed, carbon dioxide, and corn sweeteners are also created in ethanol production. That means that not all the energy used by an ethanol plant is directed at manufacturing ethanol, thus further improving the net energy balance of ethanol production.

Ethanol opponents frequently cite a study by Cornell University’s Dr. David Pimentel, who concluded that it takes 70 percent more energy to produce ethanol than it yields. Pimentel’s findings have been consistently refuted by USDA and other scientists who say his methodology uses obsolete data and is fundamentally unsound.

America's Dependence on Oil Imports

Analysis by the U.S. Department of Energy and USDA shows that, for every 100 BTUs of energy used to make ethanol, 135 BTUs of ethanol is produced. That is a positive net energy balance of 1:1.35.

A more recent Michigan State University study (2002) underscores these findings. In the MSU study, ethanol produced from corn was found to provide 56% more energy than is consumed during production. This study looked at producing ethanol from both corn wet and dry milling—and included corn grain production, soybean products from soybean milling and urea production.

These studies take into account the entire life cycle of ethanol production—from the energy used to produce and transport corn, to the energy used to produce ethanol, to the energy used in the distribution of ethanol in gasoline.

Additionally, U.S. agriculture has become more energy efficient. According to USDA statistics, U.S. agriculture uses about half the energy to produce a unit of output today than was need to produce the same output in 1950.

Ethanol opponents frequently cite a study by Cornell Professor David Pimentel, who concluded that it takes 70% more energy to produce ethanol than it saves. Pimentel’s findings have been consistently refuted by USDA and other scientists who say it uses obsolete data and is fundamentally unsound.

Future Role of Ethanol

Ethanol is uniquely positioned to grow in importance as the nation continues its quest for renewable energy and new engine technologies.

E85: This blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent ordinary unleaded gasoline has become a rapidly growing alternative fuel since the dramatic increase in gas prices. Millions of vehicles on American highways can operate on E85. These flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) can actually operate on E85, E-10 Unleaded, ordinary unleaded or any combination of these fuels. A computer in the fuel system automatically adjusts for the amount of ethanol in the blend.

The number of E85 fueling stations across the United States is growing at an accelerated rate—and U.S. automakers are manufacturing a larger number of FFVs.

Obviously, replacing 85 percent of the petroleum in a gallon of gasoline will help America wean itself from imported oil even faster—and create a greater demand for ethanol in the nation’s fuel supply.

Ethanol-Based Aviation Fuel: Extensive research has shown that an aviation fuel blend containing 85 percent ethanol offers superior performance in prop-driven aircraft. The Federal Aviation Administration and several universities are conducting research on ethanol-based aviation fuel to determine the feasibility of the fuel as an alternative to the leaded aviation fuel currently being used.

E diesel: Off-road equipment, city buses and other vehicles that run on diesel fuel are major contributors to air pollution. Research is under way to discover the optimum blend of ethanol and diesel fuels to replace straight diesel fuel in these engines. The cities of Lincoln, Neb.,, and Springfield, Ill., as well as Johnson County, Kan., have converted their city bus fleets to an E diesel blend on a test basis—and other cities in the Midwest are considering similar tests.

Fuel Cells: This is the next evolution in engine technology—and ethanol is poised to become an integral part of this new wave of automotive innovation. Fuels cells work by combining hydrogen and oxygen in a chemical reaction to create electricity, without the noise and pollution of conventional engines. Ethanol is a hydrogen-rich liquid with a simple molecular structure—offering a practical, economical and efficient solution as a hydrogen source for onboard fuel cells in vehicles or stationary applications.

Biomass Sources: While starch from the corn kernel is the feedstock of choice for ethanol production, the industry may soon have the capability to efficiently convert crop residues such as corn stalks and cobs into ethanol. Other raw materials such as trees, grasses, and other agricultural crops can also be used to derive ethanol. These biomass sources may eventually be used in ethanol production facilities that are located where corn production is not prevalent.

Hell, we gotta do something with our corn surpluses ;-)

I'd rather it be used as gasoline (regardless of the BTU situation) than turned into that corn syrup crap that is polluting our foods and turning us into an obese nation ;- )

I've seen somewhere the curves of obesity in america vs. use of hi-fructose corn syrup in food. They're identical, to the month !!!

I wonder if we can ever get a real, impartial study on this. I'm hesitant to believe anything from the corn lobby (their conclusions will obviously support ethanol). What is Pimental's bias?

Agreed. I'm hesitant to believe a study against the use of ethanol where a major player in that study is an institution from California where there are least 13 major oil refineries (their conclusions will obviously not support ethanol).

Pimental's bias? Here's a shot in the dark: NYSE: CVX or some other similar company probably "funded" this in one way or another.

No wait - it's Bush's fault.

Since when is Cornell in California. I'll admit, New York City is pretty liberal, but New York State is RED

And UC-Berkeley in the pocket of Big Oil? C'mon!!!!

I thought this was about drinking!:(