What about Ethanol? 5

[JimCasey]

I try not to be cynical >BUT< I am not seeing a technical benefit to Ethanol.
1. It takes as much energy to make as it returns. There are precious few eco-hybrid tractors and combines out there plowing and harvesting the cornfields, but plenty John Deere Diesels.
2. Cars get poorer mileage so the cost per mile increases when burning E85 or even 10% ethanol.
3. Displaces farmland used to grow food: THe price of corn has already risen noticebly
4. CO2 and Water vapor are both produced by ethanol combustion. Even the H2 Fuel-cell lobby has dodged the observation that WATER VAPOR is a more potent greenhouse gas than almost any other component.
5. Vast quantities of CO2 produced in the fermentation process.
6. Ethanol plants are being built with the cheapest (and no, I don't mean least expensive) components. This suggests that the ethanol manufacturers expect it to be a short-lived demand and want to grab the quick bucks up front. Also implied is a sacrifice in safety.
7. Residual corn products after ethanol production are converted to Cattle Feed, (also at a high cost of energy in drying, packaging, and transportation, and methane production in bovine flatulent discharge.)

SO as I see it the Birkenstock crowd gets to feel good when they narrowly define their system and they just measure the specific exhaust components of their prius after filling the tank with E85, but in reality a tank of E85 does more harm to the ecosystem/planetary entropy balance than a tank of Sunoco 260.

I'm open to reeducation, but there is more to ecology than wearing tie-dyes and singing coom-bye-ya.
Next I will rant about the ecological footprint of compact fluorescents vs traditional incandescent bulbs.

 

[melone]

I don't understand how statement number is possible....

Energy OUT = Energy IN

This implies 0 losses, right?

 

[TheTick]

Ethanol fuel makes no sense if you do the math. But, since when do politicians and greens do math?

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

This thread might be more fitting for the brand new forum1393

 

[jorton]

JimCasey

I have to agree with you. It doesn't make much sense to me either. If I remember correctly the ethanol component of E85 is also corrosive, so it can't be premixed and transported through pipelines. This further reduces the economy of E85. Also, it does not seem prudent to use our food sources as fuel. The price of corn has risen greatly. So has the price of everything that needs corn (beef, milk, poultry, etc.). Further, many farmers are growing corn rather than their usual crops, raising the prices of the other crops. I think the transition to ethanol has a lot more to do with the agricultural lobbiest than it does technical merit. Many accuse our politicians of being under the influence of "Big Oil". We may be trading "Big Oil" for "Big Ag".

With all of that said, I do think there is merit in ethanol that is produced from other non-food sources.

 

[KENAT]

A lot of this has been covered in threads 730-198198 thread730-201169 thread730-172432

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[civilperson]

Ethanol is wonderful when incorporated into beverages!

 

[JimCasey]

Melone: I will embellish. The amount of fuel consumed in producing one liter/gallon/barrel of ethanol costs almost the same amount of energy that the end-user finally receives from the same quantity of ethanol. Might just as well have a diesel Prius and save everybody a lot of bother with plowing, fertilizing, reaping, etc.

 

[moltenmetal]

That ethanol is a zero sum gme with respect to the displacement of fossil fuels is a bit of a myth based on a flawed analysis done by Pimentel and others. If the brewer's mash byproduct of fermenting the feed grain is simply wasted, then the calc definitely works out that way. If you take credit for the energy benefit of feeding the brewer's mash to cattle, then ethanol comes out at least modestly positive in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As to whether or not it does so on a sustainable basis, or an economical basis without subsidy, that's a matter for debate.

Ethanol is also an oxygenate when blended with gasoline, reducing harmful emissions in a safer way than previous additives like MTBE.

But the big problem with ethanol is that it's a distraction from the real work that needs to be done: we need to get people out of cars, and reduce the size and increase the efficiency of the ones that are left. By and large, ethanol is agricultural subsidy masquerading as energy policy.

 

[dcasto]

But the new issue is the methane from cows, now what do we do with the left over mash. The microbrewerys in my area (4 in a town of 15,000) are under fire for the high BOD in their waste water. It goes on and on.....

My Chinese boss say: Tiger from west mountain eat you the same as tiger from east mountain.

 

[msquared48]

Other than extending the gasoline supply, I do not see the logic or benefit of Ethanol. With my Prius, I was getting 51 mpg this summer. Now, with the inclusion of the Ethanol for winter driving, the rate has dropped to 44.5 mpg, and not all of that is due to the heater running. That's over a 10% drop.

Mike McCann
McCann Engineering

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

A 10% drop in fuel efficiency during winter is peanuts. Depending upon the winter conditions, even 40-50% can be experienced. I doubt the ethanol mix plays a big part.

In every vehicle I've had while in Ontario, I've experienced substantially larger drops during winter ... without changing gasoline types. The worst case was about 25-30% in a Chev Malibu.

Running the heater in winter probably takes as much as the A/C in summer.

Consider;
Colder engine taking longer to warm up to optimum temperature.
Similarly transmission and wheel bearings.
Lower tire pressure.
Extra weight of snow or ice or slush buildup on the car.

 

[SnTMan]

"By and large, ethanol is agricultural subsidy masquerading as energy policy."

moltenmetal, a star for that statement.

Regards,

Mike

 

[Comcokid]

A star for you Moltenmetal, from me as well.

You make a point for Ethanol that I hadn't though of - ethanol primarily for its benefits as an additive and not pirmarily as a fuel.

Unless you're in a country like Brazil, were the policy is one of avoiding the import of fuel and the ecomonic balance-of-trade issues, ethanol doesn't make much sense from a strictly fuel standpoint.

However, because there is a small demand for ethanol, economically, there is a push to research and investigate the ethanol alternatives and improvements that might well result in new methods and discoveries. But if it turns out there is nothing significant to be discovered, then it will remain a minor energy technology.

 

[GregLocock]

Up until recently the feedstock for industrial ethanol was... oil.

Maybe that has changed.

But I think that says it all.



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[JimCasey]

MTBE was mandated by legislative fiat. Then OOPS!, MTBE is more toxic than the tetraethyllead that was outlawed, rendering MTBE necessary. But somehow that's the fault of the evil petroleum industry, not the incompetent politicians who demanded it. Now they just raised the CAFE standard by some silly amount. Maybe they could just pass a law changing F=MA to F=MA/2, and that would just about fix the ability of the evil carmakers to meet the new CAFE standards. It'd be at least as effective as when the Indiana legislature tried to change the value of Pi to 3.

 

[owg]

I seem to be running into some forum rule since my posting needs to be split into two sections for it to be accepted, so here goes section 1.

I think we must be asking the wrong questions. An economic analysis, setting aside the subsidies, does not capture the strategic and environmental aspects, but should be done. The "net energy in versus energy content of ethanol produced" calculation does not seem to have a single solution for various reasons. 1) Do you count the fuel used by the guy driving to work to run the plant? 2)How close are the cows that are going to eat the Distillers' Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS)? 3)Do we capture the methane from the cows (not my job) as a fuel benefit or a global warming disbenefit? and so on.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[owg]

Here is section 2

When dealing with co-products (not by-products) it is not possible to calculate the cost of manufacture of one of the co-products. This has been demonstrated to various governments over the years. However most politicians don't realize that we can't calculate the cost of gasoline. Its the same problem as calculating the cost of ox-tail soup - it depends what you get for the rest of the ox. So we probably should be doing some kind of comparative analysis to determine solutions to our problems. We probably need to simulate the economy over a long period with various energy options.

One useful compilation of data can be found at

http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm

. This paper is by the agriculture folks and the conclusions are strangely detached from the data. However the tables and most of the text are informative.


HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[csd72]

Switching the US over to ethanol is like switching a junkie to methodone,you are just substituting one addiction for another.

It is definately best to increase fuel economy.

 

[moltenmetal]

Forget about the methane from the cows, as it's not part of the fuels equation. That cows emit methane has nothing to do with the ethanol and everything to do with the energetics of food production. The real greenies are veggies as well, and I'm talking about their food choices rather than their intellect! What you displace with the brewer's grain is straight feed grain- there is no impact on the methane output of the cows.

How close is the brewer's mash to the cattle? The ethanol plants are now often co-located with cattle feedlot operations, so I'd say that was close enough.