What about Ethanol?
What about Ethanol?
(OP)
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.
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.





RE: What about Ethanol?
Energy OUT = Energy IN
This implies 0 losses, right?
RE: What about Ethanol?
RE: What about Ethanol?
RE: What about Ethanol?
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.
RE: What about Ethanol?
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: What about Ethanol?
RE: What about Ethanol?
RE: What about Ethanol?
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.
RE: What about Ethanol?
My Chinese boss say: Tiger from west mountain eat you the same as tiger from east mountain.
RE: What about Ethanol?
Mike McCann
McCann Engineering
RE: What about Ethanol?
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.
RE: What about Ethanol?
moltenmetal, a star for that statement.
Regards,
Mike
RE: What about Ethanol?
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.
RE: What about Ethanol?
Maybe that has changed.
But I think that says it all.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: What about Ethanol?
RE: What about Ethanol?
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 www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
RE: What about Ethanol?
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 www.curryhydrocarbons.ca
RE: What about Ethanol?
It is definately best to increase fuel economy.
RE: What about Ethanol?
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.
RE: What about Ethanol?
RE: What about Ethanol?
One thing is sure: the Europeans and others, who have complained bitterly for decades about US agricultural subsidy policy (while maintaining their own, similar subsidies), are much more favourably disposed towards agricultural subsidy related to ethanol production than they are toward similar subsidies for food production. Corn made into ethanol is no longer available for dumping on the world markets.
RE: What about Ethanol?
I browsed through the site and clicked on a link that said "busting the ethanol myths".
Here it is.
http://www.permaculture.com/node/490
This guy either thoroughly researched this topic, or is one whacked out hippie (maybe both)
RE: What about Ethanol?
"Even if, for alcohol production, we used only what the USDA considers prime flat cropland, we would still have to produce only 368.5 gallons of alcohol per acre to meet 100% of the demand for transportation fuel at today’s levels."
Cool! Forget about all of those other crops. Grow them on the marginal land and devote the prime land to ONLY alcohol production!
Who needs food? Sounds logical to me
Believe it if you need it
or leave it if you dare
RE: What about Ethanol?
- You're assuming that nothing grows on the "marginal" land.
Remember that "prime" cropland is only HALF of the TOTAL agricultrual farmland.
So going by what you said, we would only use 46.2% (434,164,946/939,279,056) of our total crop land to farm fuel.
I'm sure we could grow SOMETHING out of the other 53.8% of the total agricultrual land. It's not like the "prime" land is very fertile soil and the "marginal land" is a bunch of rocks. I'm pretty sure that if regular people who have gardens in their back yard can grow more vegetables that you can shake a stick at on less than an acre, we probably won't need to worry about food vs. fuel. Because if some average joe can grow enough crops in his back yard to feed the neighborhood, then I'm confident that the professional farmers can grow enough to feed the nation on "marginal" lands.
RE: What about Ethanol?
Believe it if you need it
or leave it if you dare
RE: What about Ethanol?
RE: What about Ethanol?
The fact is what we buy in the store are the good fruit. What happens to the not so good fruit, and slightly spoiled grains, or out-of-date candy, the not humanly eatable grains?
I guess we just toss them in a landfill.
RE: What about Ethanol?
RE: What about Ethanol?
The feeding of garbage to pigs has been outlawed.
Until the introduction of the moderen hog concentration camps, Los Angeles had the largest hog ranch in the world. Garbage picked up daiily in LA and there abouts was sent to east of town and fed to hogs. It was outlawed in the early 50s I believe.
RE: What about Ethanol?
Don Phillips
http://worthingtonengineering.com
RE: What about Ethanol?
Other than the 'big corn' issue (all the subsidies, ingrained culture etc) is there some other reason/s why they are using corn not beats?
I tried to find out if beets are more energy dense than corn but a quick google didn't give me a conclusive answer although it suggested they were. Also I'm not sure if more or less land is suitable for beets etc. Then there's the possible issue of if combines and other equipment are readily available for corn while there may not be as much beet equipment around etc.
Either way, the corn thing just seems like they're using it because there was a glut of it making it cheap, not necessarily because it's the best candidate.
As to why not to use cane, I don't believe cane generally grows well further away from the equator.
Perhaps butanol is a better alternative? http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18443/
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: What about Ethanol?
The reason they're using corn in North America is that the grain itself is an inexpensive source of starch which is basically polysugar. The fermentation bugs are just as happy to digest starch as sugar. The cellulose in the corn stalks, not so much.
RE: What about Ethanol?
If existing distilleries can be retrofitted to incorporate new technologies as they come available, reducing the true price of ethanol, and cars are on the road ready to burn the fuel as it becomes cheaper, then there is incentive for investment.
RE: What about Ethanol?
People have been making ethanol for millenia- it's the definition of a "mature technology". Order of magnitude improvements in the energetics of this technology are unlikely.
It would be best if we'd all just STOP holding out hope that we can continue with "business as usual" as far as the personal automobile is concerned. There's no magical technological fix out there to make the fossil fuel dependence of the car just go away. We can make cars smaller and more efficient and use them less- that we can do- but we'll only do that if we're forced to by fuel price: that's a fact. Until we fix the far easier problems related to fossil fuels use- the ones associated with non-moving users of energy (ie. heating and electricity generation)- there's absolutely no point to even trying to mess with transportation fuels.
RE: What about Ethanol?
I don't think anyone implied they were growing beets in Brazil or did I miss something? Also part of my point was that when it comes to making sugar Beets are the cold weather alternative and hence, when it comes to making ethanol should they be the cold weather alternative?
As to the corn being inexpensive, that was my question. Is (or was) it inexpensive because it's genuinely cheaper or because of all the subsidies etc? When you take this into account would Beets be better, at least some significant amount of the time?
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: What about Ethanol?
Ethanol has not been made as a fuel for millenia, unless your talking about fueling frat parties. Cellulosic ethanol, yeast alternatives, and improved efficiency in distillation all represent areas where order of magnitude improvements are potential.
My car will run on E20, but I'd never dump E85 in. There is a reason cars need to be designed for E85. The modifications are minor, but there are modifications required. Furthermore, if you eliminate the requirement for flexible fueling, which could only be accomplished if sufficient numbers of fueling stations were available, ethanol only engines could acheive significantly higher efficiency by running at higher compression suited to the higher octane of the fuel.
RE: What about Ethanol?
My opinion about cellulosic ethanol is on the record here, and supported by the absence of any commercial cellulosic ethanol plant to date despite 40-50 years of development effort.
The underlying thermodynamics of the separation processes are well known and preclude order-of-magnitude improvements in the dehydration of a fermentation broth.
Ethanol, biodiesel and hydrogen have all been used by politiicans ot justify a politically expedient fairy tale: that one day we'll invent a consequence-free alternative to gasoline which will permit the automotive status quo to continue. And there are too many engineers and businesspeople willing to sell that particular brand of snake oil. While the fairy tale continues to be believed, no real progress is possible. We need to get real, and quick.
RE: What about Ethanol?
Ten years ago there were no ethanol plants and no retail ethanol outlets in my area. Today there is a plant down the road and many E85/E20/E10 stations along my commute.
Real funding for cellulosic ethanol research dried up after oil prices dropped in the seventies. Funding has only recently returned to similar levels. Also, look at advances in biotechnology. This type of tech wasn't available until the last 5 years, and it will continue to change the game. How long before someone engineers an organism or enzyme which can double the rate or concentration of conversion?
I don't disagree that there are people willing to wave energy red herrings to maintain the status quo. I also believe there are people willing to decry ethanol, to maintain the gasoline status quo.
RE: What about Ethanol?
The real point I see is that our leaders don't understand the the techinical issues. And we as engineers need to look at teaching them, or better replacing them with more intellegent people (statesmen).
The driveing factor here is and will be the cost of energy in what ever form, or the paying off of our leaders.
RE: What about Ethanol?
It doesn't take an engineer: any monkey can tell you that you go after the low-hanging fruit FIRST, and when it comes to fossil fuels replacement with renewables, transport ISN'T the low hanging fruit: stationary users of fossil fuel energy are far easier to tackle. That we aren't making real and rapid progress tackling these stationary users, while gasoline alternatives continue to be over-hyped, speaks volumes about how bad our public policy is in relation to energy production and global warming. It's as if the only engineers involved in the setting of this policy were the ones selling the snake oil.
Like hydrogen and PEM fuelcells, there's more fundamentally wrong with ethanol as a transport fuel than can be overcome by mere wishful thinking or investment money. As fossil fuel costs (inevitably) increase, we WILL see more of it especially if the agricultural subsidies are maintained- even corn ethanol- because it IS modestly fossil fuel replacement positive. It's not truly renewable because of the intensive agriculture, but that's a problem for another generation. But the basic energetics still prove that it will never replace the amount of gasoline we're using currently, nor should it. And the limitations are thermodynamic ones: you can't invent your way out of them I'm afraid.
A carbon tax or a carbon dioxide cap and trade system, properly implemented, will help to ensure that the solutions we choose for ALL energetic and climate change problems are at least no dumber than the ones we're trying to replace. That is, if the subsidies on the alternatives like ethanol similarly dissapear: until they do, the market is distorted and the results may not be in our best interest. We should NEVER subsidize consumption as what we really want to do is to to reward conservation. If the tax ensures that it costs too much in fuel to transport the corn stover or switchgrass to the cellulose ethanol plant, or the corn ethanol brewer's mash plus ethanol fuel product doesn't pay for the energy to dehydrate the ethanol, there will be no economic incentive to do it.
By the way, it would appear that my statement that there is, as of yet, still NO commercial cellulosic ethanol plant operating in the world, remains accurate. There have been PLENTY of demo plants. The SunOpta site talks about the wheat straw to ethanol plant in Spain as being, "when completed", the first commercial plant- and that depends on your definition of commercial of course.
http://www
RE: What about Ethanol?
Perhaps we should instead limit the KWH each home may receive.
If you wish to have a larger home, then it is on you to provide a 100 percent renewable source of power.
Perhaps we could stop subsidizing the flight costs of the Airlines, who delight in burning fossil fuels to fly people to Las Vegas for 49 dollars.
I do not have all the answers, but as an Engineer, it seems equally foolhardy to think that taxation is any more a real, long term solution than the use of Corn Ethanol is.
It would sure give the Government more money to waste though.
RE: What about Ethanol?
The real problem is not with ethanol, hydrogen or any other option. It is that politicians (and their friends with deep pockets)are dictating our direction of growth. As fuel prices increase I believe the market, supported by diverse research, will find better alternatives. I don't think dictating mandatory levels of ethanol production really helps anything. The future of our economy and way of life depends on finding a sustainable and affordable source of energy. Politicians can only see through the next election. Do we really want them controlling the welfare of future generations?
RE: What about Ethanol?
I've brought up the idea before in previous threads, never got much response.
I think I saw an article about CO2 rationing being considered by Blair sometime last year.
Every citizen gets a carbon allowance.
Not sure what happened if you went over it, if you didn't get any more, had to pay some kind of surcharge/tax or if you just relied on carbon trading to buy someone elses allowance.
All of these have issues, and as we're not all even convinced on the whole climate change issue it's causes effects etc then I doubt if many here would support it.
(oops, just noticed Don P brought up Brazil using beets, sure he meant cane, so I did miss something
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: What about Ethanol?
I'm not about to disagree that there are other places we need to focus our efforts. I don't believe taxes or cap and trade legislation are the answers. Conservation is not a viable solution, out society needs energy to continue to evolve. Efficiency is key, the energy is out there, solar, biological, nuclear, etc.
"Inventing" our way to sustainable energy is the only way to fuel our vehicles, our homes, our economy, and our society into the future.
RE: What about Ethanol?
The only way to fix that is with a tax. Or with another system which assigns a cost to dumping bad things into the atmosphere such as a cap & trade system. Since the latter only really works for major emitters and is hidden from CONSUMERS, the people who really need their habits changed, the tax is far more likely to work.
Try to fix problems like global warming, or the US dependence on foreign oil, by voluntary measures alone or by regulation alone, and you're fighting the market- and the result is entirely predictable.
We won't invent our way out of this problem unless there's an economic driving force to do it. Create the driving force and the invention is likely to follow. Subsidizing consumption by blessing ethanol as a "virtuous" fuel is wrong-headed, as no energy source is free of environmental consequence.
RE: What about Ethanol?
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: What about Ethanol?
An interesting story from the NYT on a GM investment in an ethanol company:
h
So, given the pessimistic tone of most posts here, have at it; what is the catch/problem with this technology?
RE: What about Ethanol?
- Steve
RE: What about Ethanol?
RE: What about Ethanol?
To break this reward must be a physical thing we have to strat re-training, but that take generations and we do not have generations. The only recourse is via physical limits or taxes on bad things. Look, we have sin taxes, it works.
As for ethanol from the OP, when surplus corn is sent to the fuel market, its OK, but even with coproducts and other social-eco impacts it is not correct. The E85 car is a sham to the public as it takes absolutely no upgrade from ethanol in its use. The E85 cars go against all engineering principles of fitness for use.
RE: What about Ethanol?
At least ethanol is a (potentially) renewable, energy-dense liquid fuel that we can use with current-technology motors to continue to transport people/things. Name your substitute for this?
RE: What about Ethanol?
butanol http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18443/
Biodiesel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel (heard an article on radio the other day that the EU is re-considering it's possition on this)
Methanol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_fuel
So there's a few for you.
Not quite a direct replacement but I did see this the other day which is perhaps a move to more practical electric vehicles http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22240865/
KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
RE: What about Ethanol?
I have no problems with biodiesel, but it can become in direct conflect for farm land with ethanol. Also, if I recall, in some biodiesel processes they use ethanol.
Have you heard that they can use lard, and beef fat to make biodiesel. Will sort of lower the cost of meat.
Looking at the cost of E85 cars, it will probally be several years before I purchase one.
RE: What about Ethanol?
Doesn't matter if you're fermenting starch or fermenting syngas: you still get a water solution of ethanol that you have to dehydrate!
Conventional ethanol plants aren't burning corn stover to make the steam to run the stills- they're using natural gas. Doesn't that tell you something? COULD they burn corn stover, with or without bothering to gasify it first? Certainly they could, but they choose not to for good reasons!
Are the fertilizer plants gasifying biomass to make the hydrogen to make fertilizer from? Nope- they're using natural gas too...
TAX THE FOSSIL CARBON and the market will sort it out. Until that happens, the technological/economic/governmental wierdness is guaranteed to continue.
Why is GM investing in Coskata? Because people are starting to see the writing on the wall: gasoline consumption has to decrease. Given the business they're in, they'd rather you held out a (false) hope of having gasoline replaced with agricultural-sourced ethanol than by reducing the number and size of cars on the roads!
RE: What about Ethanol?
How do you get to work? How do you visit your family? In my neck of the woods things tend to get spread out, we've got to get from point A to point B. Ethanol is the only tech I'm aware of with a shot in hell of doing the two most important things while still getting us around: giving us a carbon friendly fuel and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
On another topic,
I believe Switzerland is running two train lines on methane produced from meat byproducts from slaughterhouses. I've also heard of an ethanol plant/pig farm in Iowa using methane from the pig waste for ethanol dehydration and the distillers grains for feed. When co-located efficiencies gained are considerable.
RE: What about Ethanol?
Sorry, the cynic in me sees the folly of taxation.
RE: What about Ethanol?
RE: What about Ethanol?
Attempting to regulate fuel economy in vehicles is foolhardy because it doesn't deal with the market pressures which underly the choice of vehicle in the first place. People care insufficiently about fuel economy even now because, fundamentally, fuel is FAR too cheap. Subsidizing ANY fuel, or any fuel user, is bad public policy.
I prefer either (regulation or taxation) to doing NOTHING about a known problem with the market: the fact that dumping bad things into the atmosphere is not assigned a cost to those doing the dumping, but does represent a whole series of costs to all of us. All fuels have environmental consequences.
YoungTurk: membranes, absorption or distillation, the fundamental thermodynamic limitations are the same. Ethanol likes water a lot- and engines don't. Hydrogen bonds are pretty strong. Yes, membrane or mol sieve dehydration can be less energy intensive than extractive distillation to break the azeotrope, but the molecules don't just jump across the membranes or jump back off the mol sieves of their own accord- you're still climbing the same entropic gradient at the end of the day.
If you've got syngas as your starting point, you can make methanol without worrying about the bugs or the water. Existing technology, used since the '60s. You can also make FT wax which you can crack to make diesel (that one has been done since the '30s). You can also simply burn it, or burn the fuel directly without bothering with the lossy, expensive syngas generation step if what you're after at the end of the day is heat. And while 60+% of our energy needs are stationary and largely still supplied from fossil sources, going after transportation fuels remains foolhardy.
Tax the carbon appropriately and the market will sort it out. Government can put the tax revenue in a pile and burn it and it will still work.
Kicking our gasoline addiction won't be easy, but it will be impossible while people continue to feed the false hope that there's a magical technological fix out there.
RE: What about Ethanol?
The issue is the polution generated by the least effecient energy usage, transportation. And I don't see a clear solution to the oil problem.
Drill more, yes that works, except there are these people in the way.
Ethonol, yes it helps, and it helps the oil burn better.
Electric, maybe for short distances.
Propane, Where do you fill it up?
Hydrogen, it's not a complete fuel, it needs a source.
If taxes is to help, try taxing tires, they seem to measure distance traveled better than oil taxes. And besides tires are a desposel problem also.
RE: What about Ethanol?
As oil becomes more expensive, without artificial manipulation via. regulation or taxation, we will find the next technology.
Sorry to say, this is one of those threads that cannot be solved, much as any political or religious issue.
Thanks for listening, I'm out of this hand boys.
RE: What about Ethanol?
Molten, ok, ok. Tax oil and coal? Are you ready to pay triple for your domestically produced steel, do you tax steel imports to make sure foreign producers don't get away with not paying the carbon tax on their coke pile? How far down the processing stream do we go with that, tax all raw plastic imports, tax toys, do we tax chewing gum with its petrol-derived flavor enhancers. A globally-agreed-to carbon tax might work, thought we would see that as an outcome from Kyoto, but we got instead "US must stop driving cars so that the 3rd world can catch up".