Ethanol question

Factual Questions
1

I don’t know if there’s a factual answer to this question, yet I can’t think of a better forum in which to ask it.

Ethanol is being touted as a replacement for gas which, among other benefits, will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. However, given the nature of globalization, what’s to prevent third world countries from turning their entire countries over to the growing of corn to supply ethanol to richer countries, particularly the U.S.?

IIRC, one of the original reasons for thinking of using ethanol is that U.S. domestic corn growers would be the ones profiting from domestic energy use, and the supply would be stable. But given that we ship away our jobs to cheaper laborers and buy our drugs more cheaply from other countries, it’s a given that we’re going to buy corn or ethanol from countries which can produce it cheaper than we can.

Isn’t this so? And if it is so, what happens to our “lessening our dependence on foreign fuel” advantage?

2

The difference is that even if we import (a) all of our corn, and (b) all of our ethanol, we have the CAPACITY to produce those products. Thus we are not really dependent if someone tries to restrict supply. Nor will we need to expend U.S. military assets protecting other countries that produce these products. If we’re buying all our ethanol from Venezuela, and they have a coup or they decide to try and use that advantage for their own purposes, we can always say “Screw you!” and produce our own.

Personally, I like the idea of ethanol for three reasons:

First of all, it makes sense to me because Brazil in the 70s flipped their whole system over to ethanol. So technologically speaking, it can be done. I realize they went back to a flex-fuel system after a major sugar shortage, but in my mind the viability has been proven. Other technologies (e.g. hydrogen fuel cells) have not been implemented on this scale.

Second of all, one of the major advantages the United States had during WWII was our immense agricultural capacity. To a large extent, we’ve lost this dominance to Brazil (Who Colin Powell called the new “agricultural superpower”). But I think that anything that keeps our American farmer producing - so as to maintain at least our current level of agricultural prowess - is a good idea.

Third of all, as you mentioned to reduce (and ultimately end) our reliance on foreign oil. It just cannot be understated how many of our actions in the Middle East are based in part (and rightly so IMHO) on protecting our sphere of influence and control over the valuable oil in that region. Changing the system to ethanol or hydrogen or whatever will allow us to reduce some of the attention we are forced to give to places all over the globe.

3

Some countries will, some do already. The big limiter is transport costs. While many countries can produce corn cheaper than the U.S., not much of it can remain cheaper by the time it’s got there.

Brazil is the big exception. With a mature fuel ethanol industry, plenty of suitable agricultural land, government backing, proximity to America and a major import tax break from the U.S. for certain amounts of ethanol, it can and does send quite a lot north.

That will certainly continue for a while. The amount qualifying for the tax break is likely to remain cheaper than cellulosic ethanol even for many years after it becomes commercially significant as the conditions in Brazil make sugar cane (which it uses to produce ethanol) signficantly cheaper to grow than anywhere else within spitting distance of the U.S.

There is not likely to be much other trade of ethanol to the U.S., but some other signficant ethanol trade routes could open up round the world in the coming decades.

It’s worth noting though that, in all likelihood, no major country except Brazil is likely to be able to satisfy more than around 10% of its fuel needs with bioethanol (or any other biofuel) for at least a decade and I’d be surprised if many topped 20% before we’re sure when the oil’s going to run out.

Big plus: Replacing 10% of fossil fuel use with a biofuel whose growth and combustion involves fairly low net carbon emissions and that has the potential to, in a reasonable amount of time, be produced sustainably is a good thing.

Big minus: Some crazy people would much rather have food than fuel …

Resolution: Cellulosic ethanol processes (turning any cellulose, e.g. grass, wood chipping, tiger lillies, into ethanol) will soon be/are viable and will be commercialised to convert less versatile biological fuels into ethanol and will, eventually, make the convertion of corn, sugar beet, cassava and a variety of other tasty produce into ethanol, uneconomical.

Give it a decade

4

A few thoughts.

A) Corn isn’t the best crop to make ethanol from. From my understanding in the USA, corn’s dominance is a result of the corn lobby.

B) Any crops grown and then converted to ethanol don’t contribute to an elevated carbon level, so it’s environmentally friendly.

C) From an economic standpoint, anything that lowers the demand for oil, also lower’s the price for oil, which is good for the economy, even if we import ethanol.

D) As it stands, ethanol can’t really replace oil as the amount of grassland devoted would be huge. I believe there are efforts to make ethanol from genetically engineered algae. That has the greatest promise in my opinion.

5

Patrick Bedard of Car and Driver magazine wrote an interesting article dealing with the subject. Obviously the debate is subject to a lot of assumptions, but there are certain immutable facts about corn yields and energy expenditures involved in crop production and the subsequent distillation, refining, and shipping of the final product.

When discussing the possibility of importing foreign ethanol, you need to take into account that in the U.S. ethanol production is heavily subsidized, ethanol use is mandated, and ethanol is hygroscopic, so it cannot be shipped in existing pipelines.

You might want to Google “Ogallala aquifer” before touting the sustainability of our Agricultural Power

6

Inorrect. I suggest you read Cecils’ columnon ethanol fuel. At the moment it requires about 1.5 barrels of oil to produce the energy equivalent of 1 barrel of ethanol from corn. Under ideal circumstances and using sugar cane as the feedstock it might have become possible for Brazil to produce domestic etahnol with a net energetic gain, but it’s open to debate. However even that would again become a net energetic negative if either the ethanol or the sugar were exported due to the energy cost of transport.

As such crops grown and then converted to ethanol are major contributors to elevated atmospheric carbon levels. The more ethanol produced, the more greenhouses gases produced and the more fossil fuels consumed.

At the moment ethanol production increases the demand for oil because the amount used for pestiide, fertiliser, cultivation, irrigation, transport and processing exceeds the energy gained from the ethanol itself.

7

A company here has claimed success in this and are hoping to get a pilot plant running this year producing biodiesel from sewage, linky however the final sentence starts:

:dubious:

Dave

8

Last I heard, there was some promising research into using switchgrass for ethanol production. Switchgrass apparently produces more ethanol than corn. Plus, it’s indigenous to North America (it grows in the prairies), it’s relatively drought-tolerant, and it’s a perennial that shouldn’t need to be replanted every year. Plus, we wouldn’t need to sacrifice any of our corn crop to make fuel.

9

Blake
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhettro
B) Any crops grown and then converted to ethanol don’t contribute to an elevated carbon level, so it’s environmentally friendly.

I’m sure rhettro ment that they don’t contribute to carbon levels the way fossil fuels do.
Think of it this way. if all the fossil fuels were to be left in the ground they would not contribute to existing carbon levels in the biosphere. They are locked up in the oil .
Once we remove the oils from its storage place and burn them they are now contributing.
On the other hand the carbon in producing corn, or any other biofuel, is removed from the ground and just replaced as the biofuel is burned. Thus no gain in carbon level.

10

However…

Think conservation for the short term.

Rob

11

Re: the environment, it would probably have an immediate net negative affect on the environment. We’ve just dropped the price of oil, so more people in the rest of the world will buy it and burn it. At best, it’d only be carbon neutral.

12

I am not an ethanol guy, however I am a corn guy, and I can answer some of these questions.

First, there aren’t all that many places in the world that are ideal for corn production: most of the U.S., Argentina and Brazil, and many parts of Europe. Europe, however, is pretty crowded. A lot of third-world countries just don’t have the climate or soil to be big-time corn producers – just like most parts of the U.S. (outside of Florida and the Gulf Coast) can’t support big-time sugar cane production.

Ethanol production in the U.S. isn’t subsidized, except by local tax breaks in some areas. Ethanol blending is subsidized, but that subsidy goes to the gasoline refiners, not the ethanol producers.

Corn is the best American crop for ethanol because there’s a lot of it, and because corn is about 65% starch. Sorghum is also high in starch, but there isn’t nearly as much of it grown. There are a lot of soybeans grown, but they don’t have nearly as much starch.

A by-product of producing ethanol from corn is a high-protein mash called “distillers dried grains.” That goes a long way to replacing corn in livestock feed.

Frankly, the “corn lobby” can’t wait for cellulosic ethanol to come online. Currently, squeezing ethanol out of cellulosic material is expensive and inefficient. So why should corn people root for a cellulosic competitor? Because if the U.S. becomes too dependent on ethanol from corn, then the price of corn will become too connected to the price of oil. The easiest way to destroy the American ethanol industry would be to flood the country with really cheap oil.

What the corn lobby really wants is demand from the livestock feed industry, the ethanol industry, the food industry and the export market, without any one of those customers becoming so powerful that it alone can dictate corn prices or production.

13

NO! There is a gain in carbon levels. Please read both Cecil’s column and what I just posted. The carbon used in producing corn or any other biofuel is removed form the gorund and never, ever rpelaced. It is crude oil and is used to produce diesel, petroleum and inductrial feedstock. It is no different to simply burning the petroleum directly in vehicles.

14

Carbon removed from the ground ?

Surely photosynthesis requires CO2 not a sack of charcoal

15

Yes, but what he’s saying is that you still need to plough, sow, weed, reap, thresh, ferment, distill and transport, which at present is all being oil-fuelled.

16

I see, this is the 1.5 barrels of oil in to get 1 barrel out argument.

It can’t really be as bad as that, otherwise Brazil would never have bothered.

17

Ever heard of Bio Diesel?
As soon as I can get hold of my son I’ll ask him how much biodiesel they use in their new tractors.

18

Also in order for your arguement to hold water it must be new ,not currently being used, farmland.It is true that farmers are taking land out of government programs and very well may be using it to produce biofuels but it may just as well be used to feed the hungry in Iraq.

19

Just called my son. He said they used 30% biodiesel to spray around 11,000 acres.
He also said one of the big farmers used 100% soy to farm his 10,000 acres.

sorry about the triple post.

20

I won’t say ‘incorrect’, but I will say that it’s not at all clear that 1.5 figure is correct. Latest research I could find on net energy gain from ethanol production comes out ‘too close to call’ http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/ethanol.html, though of course there are also studies showing a net gain: Stromvergleich umsonst - Kostenloser Stromanbieter Vergleich

My personal opinion is that the industry will only get more efficient (and remember, advances in oil and coal efficiency will also increase the net gain from ethanol), so ethanol is a long-term net energy gain. But at any rate, it’s certainly not established fact that ethanol is a massive energy loser.