How viable is ethanol as a fuel?

[Measure_for_Measure]

*Originally posted by That Insufferable Jerk… *
FLOWBARK You still have not read the link have you? Go read it for the first time. It specifically talks about throwing out the energy used in the production of the facilities and construction of the vehicles used to transport along with the mining of the minerals for the fertilizer.

Let’s see. Initially you said that, “The “right” way being that you throw out all the energy needed to produce and transport the fertilizer…” Now, you seem to be hedging a little.

To quote from the site: “The net energy value (NEV) of corn ethanol was calculated as 16,193 Btu/gal when fertilizers are produced by modern processing plants, corn is converted in modern ethanol facilities, farmers achieve normal corn yields, and energy credits are allocated to coproducts.”

Seems to me they have considered fertilizer. Instead of making me read through the entire article, why don’t you just back up your original claim, hmmm?

-------- As for energy credits… How is that a different argument?

They allow energy credit for the production of byproducts such as gluten. I don’t see how this relates to, " They state that when you look at the data the “right” way then you get an energy benefit. The “right” way being that you throw out all the energy needed to produce and transport the fertilizer and ALL energy required to refine the produce into ethanol. "

Which is what I was questioning. To repeat, applying energy credits for the byproducts of ethanol production is a separate matter.

---- Energy credits seem to have placed in the report after it was realized that there was no benefit.

To repeat, if you look at Table 1, you will see that all other studies use this methodology. See the column entitled, “Coproducts energy credits”

---- The entire report is a SUMMARY of other reports.

Table 1 summarizes other studies. Tables 2-7 appear to underlie the calculations used by the author.

Please also note that putting something in capital letters doesn’t make it true.

Finally, FWIW: Interested readers may want to refer to the July 2002 update of this 1995 study, which is available as a pdf file here

[Measure_for_Measure]

I may have found a quote that pertains. The underline is mine.

Estimating the energy input for determining the NEV of corn ethanol involves adding up all the energy required to grow corn and to process it into ethanol. Most studies, including this one, include only primary energy inputs in their NEV estimates. Secondary inputs, such as energy required to build ethanol facilities and produce transportation equipment are extremely difficult to quantify. For example, collecting data on the energy embodied in an ethanol plant would require a tremendous amount of data on a wide range of building materials. It would be necessary to allocate this energy among all the products manufactured in the plant over its lifetime. After going through all this trouble, the final result would add very little to the total energy value of a gallon of ethanol.

Ok. This quote says that they don’t consider the energy required to build ethanol facilities and to produce transportation equipment. It does not say that they ignore, “ALL energy required to refine the produce into ethanol.” (that’s covered in a separate section, as I stated earlier). Nor does it say that they ignore, “all the energy needed to produce and transport the fertilizer”. To say that they ignore the energy costs of building the trucks does not imply that they ignore the energy costs (i.e. the petrol costs) of carrying the fertilizer to the farm.

[That_Insufferable_Jerk]

“Seems to me they have considered fertilizer. Instead of making me read through the entire article, why don’t you just back up your original claim, hmmm?” FLOWBARK

READ the report. Other wise stop this. The reference you make to other reports using the energy credits are why I said the report is a SUMMARY of other reports.
And yes I throw my own opinions in the things I write but they are obviously my opinions.

[That_Insufferable_Jerk]

you work for the USDA, don’t you.

[That_Insufferable_Jerk]

And yes, the initial statement of all was incorrect on my half. But the energy required to mine (“create”) minerals wasn’t counted, neither was the truck maintenance or a lot of other relevant things . I would imagine that that is a significant amount of energy. If the USDA doesn’t want to consider the total value of ethanol, this is the kind of report they would produce. The general point of my comments is the report isn’t very good. The fact that they arbitrarily throw out certain energy required to produce it, shift between units, and have a general opinion through out the report is my point. The fact that ethanol is useless and the poor quality report seems to support that the USDA knows it and doesn’t want to explore it, is my point.

[Measure_for_Measure]

— And yes, the initial statement of all was incorrect on my half.

No problem, we all make mistakes.

— you work for the USDA, don’t you.

<<Snicker.>> If you go to the GD thread, you’ll see that I was just as tough on TVAA.

— If the USDA doesn’t want to consider the total value of ethanol, this is the kind of report they would produce.

Sigh. Whatever. They claim that other researchers don’t do a comprehensive accounting either, probably because it makes since to consider the larger aspects before tracking down the smaller ones.

Anyway, FWIW, my take is that you can accept all of Dept of Ag’s conclusions and still believe that ethanol subsidies aren’t especially good for the environment nor a particularly efficient way to reduce consumption of foreign oil. Indeed, that’s my position; I am agnostic with regards to the relative quality of the Cornell and Dept of Ag study. (Furthermore, I have no idea whether ethanol subsidies are a better method of farm support than other US agricultural subsidies.)

[TV_time]

For what it’s worth (I prefer the phrase to the initials), I have recently run stories about wind farms going in near ethanol manufacturing sites with part of the energy ear-marked for the production of ethanol.

While it does not eliminate the use of energy to create ethanol it does lower the use fossil fuels a bit for that creation. And yes, I know of only two sites.

TV

[Measure_for_Measure]

The Master Speaks