Of course I’m reading them. I’m just trying to respond to their points in the best why I can, since I’m not sure they understood what I said. Sometimes (unfortunately) repetition is necessary to get a point across.
For example, you can’t equate the security costs of securing and trnsporting oil to this country from the Middle East to the thermodynamic losses in the ethanol production process that result from converting one form of energy to another.
They are two different things. The ethanol industry says they are both subsidies, but they aren’t really. One is forced on us by geopolitics, while the other results from not understanding the laws of thermodynamics.
It appears to me that you misunderstand the use of “efficiency” here. For talking purposes, let’s refer to the Argonne well-to-wheel study, Appendix B of which (a pdf file!) lists well-to-tank efficiencies for various energy sources. For example, table B1 estimates energy used to produce and deliver conventional gasoline as between 194,000 and 289,000 BTU for every one million BTU of gasoline in the tank. That means that the process used to produce gasoline produces three-and-a-half to four times as much energy as it consumes. And yet, the Earth is not awash with energy, and gasoline doesn’t sell for pennies per gallon.
On the other hand, for every one million BTU of ethanol produced, Table B64 lists the total energy used as between 430,000 and 736,000 BTU, which means that these processes produce 134% to 233% of the energy that they consume. Now, you might have some quibble with how these percentages are calculated (and I note in passing that they’re higher than the ones that Cecil quotes), but note that the percentages are still lower than even a conservative estimate of gasoline production efficiency. So why the insistance that 134% can’t be true?
SkyCowboy, I did not claim that the cost of military action overseas is a subsidy in the same sense that Ethanol is subsidized. It was more an observation of the real cost of oil in terms of necessitating huge expenditures in the military to attempt to fashion a Middle East that will supply us with oil. Of course you can disagree, and one could always say that such military action was for other reasons, and not about the oil. I realize this.
But what’s bothering me here is that you didn’t just disagree, you simply pretended that I had said something else entirely. I was talking about fighting wars overseas, and you responded with some comment about “communication” and “shipping lanes”.
AND THAT’S NOT EVEN THE MAIN POINT. What I’m really objecting to is your continued insistence that if the production of ethanol were positive efficient, that it would amount to “free” energy. Several people now have disputed this - not the facts, but your very reasoning itself has been shown to be incorrect. Yet you just blithely continue to repeat your assertion without addressing the criticism. You’re just talking past everyone and not listening to what they are saying.
By the way, nobody is disputing that the processing of gasoline is more efficient than the processing of ethanol. The difference is that there is only a finite amount of oil; it is not a renewable resource. Gasoline is cheaper now, but when we run out, it won’t be.
By the way, do you pronounce it “BLOW-ero” or “Blower-O” or “Blo-WERO?”
I wasn’t pretending you had said something else entirely – and don’t let it bother you. We were talking different languages and I apologize for slipping into military jargon:
Keeping open “lines of communication” and “shipping lanes” are military terms and a big part of the DoD’s mission. They are all components of fighting a war overseas.
It doesn’t do any good to win control over someone’s oil fields if we don’t secure – and keep open – a means to get the oil here. Sorry about the misunderstanding.
I acknowledge we have to spend tremendous amounts of DoD money to get oil here from the Middle East. (I once read that we actually pay over $5.00 per gallon – if you consider the DoD cost to control the oilfields and secure the LOCs and the sea lanes.) The fact that most of the oil ended up under the deserts of the Middle East is simply a geopolitical fact we can do nothing about. (Except to conserve and reduce our need for oil which I am all in favor of. I detest SUVs, drive only a four cylinder car with a manual transmission, commute to work on my bicycle, don’t use an air conditioner in summer, and think the fact that the U.S. uses 25% of the earth’s oil is appallingly selfish.)
But that wasn’t the point of Cecil’s column. (At least as I read it.) Cecil was making the point that ethanol production doesn’t make sense with regards to the laws of thermodynamics. And I agree with him.
Ethanol is not the answer to meeting our current energy needs, and at the considerable risk of repeating myself (again), still maintain increased reliance on ethanol only means we will deplete our fossil fuels faster.
The only real solution is to cut our energy consumption. We could do it. I lived in Germany for a number of years and their standard of living is just as high as ours, while using only about a third the energy per capita.
[quote[When we make ethanol, we have to consume gobs of energy to compress those millions of years into a few months.[/quote]
Ethanol isn’t petroleum and isn’t produced by the same process, “compressed” or otherwise. You might as well say that because it takes millions of years to make diamonds, there is no point in making glass.
I FU**ING give up… ** SkyCowboy ** is obviously resistant to sense and logic.
I bet he thinks the world is flat, and everything else revolves around it too!
Huh! Of course ethanol isn’t petroleum, but it is energy in a liquid form. And to make it we have to spend energy to accelerate a process that would happen naturally if we just buried the corn and waited a few million years.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that the advantage of petroleum is that Mother Nature supplies the heat and pressure needed to make transformation free of charge?
Several people have made good points, but other than Rene saying it would be pedagougery to run an ethanol plant on its own ethanol, no one has actually proved my reasoning was incorrect.
So, here it is, “Ethanol 101.”
The ethanol industry likes to quote an Argonne Lab study saying ethanol production returns 134% of the original energy investment. (Let’s not use the term efficiency ratio, apparently that is confusing.)
– That means if someone invests 100 units of energy into growng corn and making ethanol, they should get 134 units of energy back.
– Now, if they invest that 134 units to grow more corn and make more ethanol they should get 180 units in return.
– Invest that 180 units to grow corn and make ethanol and you get 241 units.
– Invest that 241 and suddenly you have 322 units.
If that 134% is correct, in only four cycles a company could triple their original investment.
So if 134% is really correct, why do they need subsidies, and why do they need fossil fuels in the form of natural gas and diesel fuel to run their tractors, trucks, and ethanol distilleries?
Admittedly, some of the 34% increase each cycle would have to be used to pay salaries, repair equipment, pay for lawyers, lobbyists, etc. but there should still be enough growth each production cycle so that they could divert a little of the finished product to power the cycle. (Why use some of our limited supply of fossil fuels to make ethanol if it grows at a rate of 134%?) That is of course unless that 134% ratio isn’t really true.
Back about the seventh grade I remember building a small electric motor in science class. I also remember for a few weeks thinking, “Hey, if I use this motor to power a generator, and then use the electricity from the generator to power the motor, this sucker will run forever.” Then my teacher started explaining why it wouldn’t (couldn’t) work that way.
Running an ethanol plant on its own ethanol won’t work either. If it did, we would have a positively reinforcing feedback loop that would just keep growing and growing until ethanol was so inexpensive, no one would bother to make it. (Wasn’t there once a scifi book by Roy Bradbury where energy got so cheap, no one could afford to make it?)
No, the 34% is NOT necessarily enough to pay for salaries, to repair equipment, or to hire lawyers if it is sold at the price of gasoline (why, exactly, are you so sure that it would be?!). Also, the value of the 34% will equal $0 if no one can sell any ethanol because its price is higher than that of gasoline. The way the going price of ethanol would be determined (very roughly) is (costs)/(that 34% product, in terms of gallons surplus produced). If that value comes up to be even a penny more than that for gasoline, then absolutely none of it will be sold (again, roughly, in terms of perfect competition). In order for it to be sold at all, that extra penny of cost must be subsidized. It is not very difficult to see how it would cost more to produce a surplus gallon of ethanol than a surplus gallon of gasoline.
I repeat again, the (hypothetical) fact that the process gives you a net surplus says NOTHING about how much it’s actually going to COST. JUST THINK ABOUT IT!!!
Also, just because a process gives you a net surplus doesn’t mean you suddenly have limitless energy. Putting money in the bank (or better yet, investing it elsewhere) also gives you a return on your investment, but does that mean you now have infinite money? Obviously no! JUST THINK ABOUT IT!!!
Ethanol would be so cheap no one would bother to make it??? Ever heard of supply and demand? If the price is too low, some producers would stop making it, thereby raising the price until there’s an equilibrium. I hope Roy Bradbury wasn’t ignorant enough to write a book about it.
Also, what the hell does this have to do with perpetual motion? You’re getting all the energy from the sun! The 34% isn’t coming from nothing. It’s coming from the sun! The sun! You know, the bright thing in the sky. Ever try looking up? No, don’t, you might think it’s pretty and not look away until you’ve gone blind.
You may think you’re teaching Ethanol 101, but i think you need to go and take Econ.
If you still don’t get it, then do us a favor and don’t say anything more.
Now, how about that new method for turning any type of biomass straight into crude oil (you might’ve heard about in connection with processing turkey wastes, its first commercial application)? Seems like the holy grail to end both pollution and landfill waste, but i remain skeptical. Anybody know more?
Just because I’m feeling ignored too, and on the off chance that someone other than SkyCowboy doesn’t get it, let me try one more time.
There really isn’t anything thermodynamically wrong with ethanol production returning 134% of the original energy investment (and bad cess on Cecil for saying so! Don’t be making jokes when you know damn well some people ain’t gonna get it). The 134% figure is 134% of the energy input from humans, not the total energy input. The total energy input would include energy from the sun, of course, an amount which is much greater than the input from humans.
So, of course, the comparison of ethanol production to a motor/generator perpetual motion machine is silly. A better analogy is a system consisting of a motor, a generator, and a windmill. In this case, it shouldn’t be surprising if the generator supplies more electricity than the motor uses. There’s an additional power input after all.
The statement that “running an ethanol plant [with the quoted efficiency] would [result in] a positively reinforcing feedback loop that would just keep growing and growing until ethanol was so inexpensive, no one would bother to make it” is also ridiculous. As I stated in my earlier post (conveniently ignored by SkyCowboy), gasoline production and distribution returns 350% to 400% of the original energy investment, far higher than anything quoted for ethanol. Yet, gasoline isn’t so inexpensive that no one bothers to make it. Neither is gasoline production thermodynamically impossible.
Not ignored. I actually went and looked at the reference you cited. Fortunately, only a few of the many pages are about ethanol. (Both pure and E85.) And it is well-indexed so you kind easily find the pertinent parts.
My take on what I saw there was that they didn’t discuss so much the thermodynamics of ethanol, but its suitability as a fuel.
Well, SkyCowboy, you may have missed Appendix 6 of the report maverik cited (truthfully, the title of this appendix is misleading, so that’s not surprising). This appendix is primarily devoted to calculating the ratio of input to output energy in processing ethanol, with input energy factors including agricultural energy inputs, processing inputs, transportation, chemicals, and plant amortization. Their estimation is that this ratio is on the order of 1.8 to 2.0.
In truth, you can argue that this is somewhat high, as the authors assume that 1) the plant is integrated into the surrounding agricultural land, which minimizes transport, and allows plant waste products to be used as fertilizer, and 2) a significant percentage of plant input is otherwise reject grain, which lowers agricultural cost. However, even adjusting for these factors, the energy ratio would be above 1.0.
Of course you are getting energy from the Sun. Where do you think the energy in our fossil fuels came from?
You say, “The 34% isn’t coming from nothing.” OK, I’ll buy that, but then why does the ethanol industry need to rely on fossil fuels to power the farmers and ethanol plants? If all that energy from the Sun is available, why doesn’t the ethanol industry simply reinvest a little bit of their product to make more ethanol, and leave our precious fossil fuels alone?
Repeat after me:
“The hard truth of ethanol is that the more we concentrate national energy policy into ethanol, the faster we deplete our supply of fossil fuels.”
We have better things to use fossil fuels for than making ethanol. (That is unless you plan to drink the ethanol for recreational purposes. )
Not to mention of course the doubled carbon dioxide release that results from burning fossil fuels to make ethanol, than burning the ethanol. Why not just use the fossil fuel instead of making something you have to burn again? (Burn twice, release twice the carbon dioxide.)
Once again, you’re confusing business success with process (thermodynamic) efficiency. Just like your example of the Wisconsin plant that got canceled…and your example and my rebuttal of the Brazilian ethanol industry in the early '90s…and my example of Sully County, South Dakota. Plus your farming experiment. Bear with me now:
An industrial process can be technically successful, yet a commercial failure. Case in point: Betamax (eyes roll), or any of the competitors to the original Nintendo Game Boy. All of these were technically superior to their competitor, but lacked the momentum to get established in the marketplace. They were clobbered by people who negotiated better.
Counterpoint: Harley-Davidson. Oh, could I go on and on about The Motor Company…
The reason ethanol producers don’t breed like rabbits is that they’re capital-limited. Founding an ethanol plant (or any profitable chemical plant these days) takes tens of millions of dollars, from people with risk aversion and short time horizons. In the case of pharmaceuticals or integrated circuits, the market is pretty solid, and you can begin a billion-dollar plant while sleeping soundly at night.
But in the case of any fuel, the price of petroleum is so variable that competing with it becomes a Vegas-like proposition. It’s accepted that a barrel of petroleum would have to comfortably and consistently exceed US$30, before alternative fuels can establish market momentum. (2003 apparently won’t do it- just saw a barrel dip under $28 today.) On top of that, Congress could wipe you out every year by fiat, for example by dropping a tariff and letting Brazilian ethanol steamroll the industry.
This is the same problem plaguing the space launch industry. There are two main customers. Communications satellites are easier to negotiate with than the government (DoD/NASA), but they’re also mutiyear, multimillion-dollar endeavors, so they’re extremely cyclical. The federal government could also lift its ban on foreign launchers, which are much cheaper. When you only launch five missions per year- in a good year- at over $50 million a pop, you could bleed a whole lot of red ink before you see black again.
New, better rockets get developed for billions of dollars in R&D. To ensure this happens, both the government and the large satellite manufacturers pledge a minimum number of bookings, to any company with a proposed and credible rocket design. The rocket developer thus knows it will at least break even on its billions.
Not so with alternative fuels- fleets will drop you readily at the next overhaul if the books balance. Ethanol is shockingly elastic in this sense, since it can be switched instantly with gasoline, even blended in the same tank. Therefore plant building is a crystal-ball exercise. Whether or not ethanol “prints money” is, like a lot of businesses, subject to who shook hands with whom. And a lot of those hands are oil-stained.
I’ll explain this for the last time: Ethanol plants don’t run on ethanol because it’s bad business, not because it’s impossible or inefficient (physically). Do we insist that computers be assembled by computer scientists? Or that satellites be built by astronauts? In both cases, other people can do a perfectly good job at a lower price; in fact, building satellites by astronauts would be a shocking misappropriation.
Ethanol has an added value as a motor fuel, because it’s storable, rapidly pumpable with existing facilities, and high-octane. If you need to propel yourself using hundreds of small explosions per second, great. For this, it commands some economic value from its increased utility.
By comparison, natural gas and coal make poor motor fuels. Coal I don’t have to explain. Natural gas has high octane, but its low density means expensive tanks that provide half the range. And refilling takes hours, unless you have a high-pressure unit, which like the tanks is a serious investment. (Yes I know there are lots of natural-gas buses. Buses have the onboard volume to make ranges acceptable, by using massive tanks. Bus fleets also amortize the pumps with central refueling, and have the workers to moot the short range every night.)
Because of this, natural gas and coal have a decreased utility, expressed in their price. Therefore, if you don’t need mobility but are just boiling something, you save money by burning coal or natural gas. Burning ethanol in a continuous, stationary flame is sending portability, octane, and especially money right out the chimney, and as I mentioned the ethanol plants are financially risky already.
Could an ethanol plant run on diverted ethanol? I’d say so. Would anyone with a dash of business training or process-engineering knowledge do such a thing? Not even Enron.
2a. I’ve already mentioned why heavy-duty vehicles burn diesel. The large investment in the engine, combined with the costs of downtime, usually beats the cost of fuel. Therefore the maintenance advantage of diesel trumps all. Of course, biodiesel results in even lower maintenance. But as I’ve mentioned, the heavy-duty fleets are very conservative with their engines, for the above reason.
Okay, I’ll wade into subsidies. Ethanol is subsidized, because petroleum is subsidized. SkyCowboy, you’ve already admitted to the military expenditures. That’s just an indirect petroleum subsidy. Directly, the US petroleum industry receives drilling credits, enhanced-recovery credits, and accelerated depreciation schedules. The government basically lets over three billion dollars slide by directly, plus more in other forms.
This is because US petroleum is “hard.” We’ve been drilling for almost 140 years, so we’ve tapped all the convenient petroleum- the stereotypical gushers. All the oil remaining under US territory is difficult, in financial terms, physical terms (including energy balance- that’s another post), or both. In contrast, the Middle East has only been drilling seriously since about World War II. They’re still on their “easy” oil. So it’s noticeably cheaper, even after shipping it across the planet. The same holds for many other oil-producing countries.
The Federal government cuts the domestic industry a break, to ensure there’s a domestic industry. The subsidies make up the price difference, like a tariff. Otherwise, we’d just use 100% imported oil, which would set us up for another embargo. I think we could just maintain a massive stockpile, plus just enough direct subsidies (to the company, not per-gallon or per-well) to keep a domestic industry on life support. In case of an embargo, the stockpile would tide us over until the domestic industry ramps up again. But I’m not in charge now, am I?
There’s not much hope for dropping domestic subsidies. By the time the Middle East is on their difficult oil, we’ll be on our very, very difficult oil. And yes, some of the increased cost of domestic oil is due to its poorer energy balance vs. imports, even when not shipped across oceans.
Therefore, ethanol requires subsidies, until its price comes down enough to compete with after-subsidy gasoline. Sure, we could just back off the petroleum subsidy, but I’m not holding my breath.
Can’t ignore your proposed experiment, SkyCowboy. It also falls under (fails under?) business reasoning.
Academics don’t need business training per se, but they do need to fight for research dollars. Did it ever occur to you, Sky, that performing (let alone repeating) your multiyear, cross-industry experiment would strain the budget of a small college’s entire Ag department? Especially since, to replicate the energy aspects of a chemical process, the experimental ethanol equipment would have to be nearly full-scale? Let’s see: acres of land for several years, a full set of farm equipment, industrial equipment from several industries, conversion of that equipment to another fuel plus skilled maintenance, and PhDs planning the whole shebang?
I’m not Argonne, so I can only guess why they rejected your…letter. Maybe they have confidence in their researchers and their peer-reviewed conclusion: ethanol from corn has a positive energy balance. Maybe they read the other independent, peer-reviewed conclusions- from Britain, Canada, and as maverik pointed out, Australia. Maybe they’re reassured by ethanol programs in Sweden, France, India, Thailand, China, Mexico, and of course Brazil. And maybe, just maybe, they have better things to do with their schedule and budget than indulge you.
Glad to hear you’re reducing energy use across the board, SkyCowboy. “When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race.” -H.G. Wells
Thanks for your well-reasoned response. I appreciate you taking the time to do it.
But, just a couple of points:
If it were possible for an ethanol plant to run on a fraction of its output, wouldn’t we do it if for no other reason than to cut the leash binding us to foreign oil? Forget the business aspects for second – all excellent points you made by the way – and just think about meeting our energy needs using our own resources.
That alone should be motivation enough for ADM or the Argonne Labs to conduct a controlled experiment to see if its actually possible.
And if it is, pull out of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, et al, burn only our own ethanol we make by using some of the output from the ethanol plants, and let OPEC wither on the vine because they no longer have a market for their oil.
For national security reasons alone, the US Congress should demand such an experiment just to see if it is really possible. And if it is, we have a magic bullet. (At least until controlled fusion becomes a reality.)
But as I’m sure you realize, I don’t think it is possible. (At least I’m not convinced by a study the Illinois Departments of Agriculture and Commerce funded.)
)