Ethanol production 9

[JLSeagull]

The press speaks of agricultural methanol as a solution for our energy dependence. What is the yield in terms of volume of ethanol per bushel of corn? What energy is required to process corn to ethanol? What is the likelyhood that ethanol from corn could replace significant portions of the crude oil based refining or petrochemical industry?

 

[Montemayor]

This subject has been studied and debated ad-nauseum. I did in-depth studies on ethanol production over 25 years ago and the outcomes were always bad for the viability or feasibility of ever producing a competitive energy source from ethanol. In order to compete the energy source has to be devoid of governmental subsidies and stand on its own economic merits.

To address your specific questions:

1. It doesn’t matter what the “yield” of ethanol is per bushel of corn. What matters is the rock bottom real price of the product alcohol – all-costs-in and including a reasonable profit for the producer. The obvious fact is that it doesn’t generate a profit, but rather it generates a net loss. Proof of this is that neither you nor I would invest in such a venture – unless, of course, we’re paid by the government with other tax payers money. This latter effect is what drives companies like Archer-Daniels and others to continue to make ethanol. They simply use our taxes to justify their production.
2. It takes more total energy to produce the fuel-competitive ethanol than the energy it contains. If you have ever gotten remotely close to the Waste Agricultural industries, you will soon realize what the term “intensive labor requirement” means – and costs. It takes hydrocarbon energy to make the fertilizer, plant the corn seeds, run the tractors, harvest the cobs, transport the grain to the fermenters, etc., etc., …….
3. I wouldn’t waste my time waiting for ethanol to “replace significant portions of the crude oil based refining or petrochemical industry”. I’ve got a lot of better and more interesting things to do – like watching all the windmills chugging along, trying to supply electricity to all the cities in the U.S.. As an Electrical Engineer, you should be in a good position to identify just how long that will take.

The next time you read a press release on the subject, just bear in mind who wrote the article and their credentials as well as experience in the engineering realities. Most of these people spent their high school days sleeping through chemistry and physics classes.

 

[kenvlach]

With a cheap carbohydrate source, cheap labor & cheap fuel, ethanol can be competitive. Brazil does it using sugarcane as both carb & fuel source.

The American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) claims that
"It takes only 35,000 BTUs of energy to produce ethanol that contains at least 77,000 BTUs of energy."
The latest production processes are claimed to be more energy efficient than reported in a well-known 1979 study by Professor David Pimentel of Cornell.

http://www.ethanol.org/PressRelease71905bhtm.htm

But, land & labor costs perhaps make ethanol non-competitive in the US w/o the subsidies mentioned by Art. The jury is still out IMHO.

Using waste cellulose or switchgrass will improve the economics, but a lot of technological development is needed,

http://www.ethanol.org/documents/6-05_Cellulosic_Ethanol.pdf,

and since GWB mentioned it, seems like a hollow promise for the near future.

 

[Montemayor]

kenvlach:

Unlike the organization you cite (ACE), I have no corn to sell nor subsidies to receive. My opinion is based on my own factual experience and studies as an energy consultant and I have no interest group that I work for or under. Besides the energy sector, I've also worked directly in the agricultural waste product industry here in the USA. My personal experience has proven to me and to everyone associated with this industry that the labor market in the USA makes collecting any substance off a farm a very costly and prohibitive labor item.

I also know more than a few things about Brazil since I've lived and worked there. I have first-hand knowledge that Brazilian alcohol is subsidized by the Brazilian government. That is the reason it exists. Otherwise, it couldn't justify its existance. What you call "cheap" turns out to be very expensive - all one has to do is review the economic status of Brazil today. It's national economy is teetering on bankruptcy. I also have difficulty trying to figure out how you can cite that the fuel in Brazil is also "cheap".

I realize that the facts I cite are not pleasing to those of us who are hoping for the energy miracle that will save us from total depletion of fossil fuels and further atmospheric contamination. However, like any other engineer who has gone through many years preaching the truth to energy consumers I'm afraid that there is no credible technology waiting "in the wings" for us to employ. Hydrogen economy, solar energy, aeolic energy, geothermal, fuel cells, natual gas substitution, Gasahol, etc., etc., have all been looked at and they simply don't offer a total solution for the future. After 30 years since the Oil Embargo of the early 1970's we're still no closer to finding an answer to the energy replacement(s) for fossil fuels. All we've done is deplete our biggest and proven option: Nuclear Energy - something the environmental nuts should be very proud of. I predict the tree-huggers will all line up for Nuclear as soon as gasoline prices hit the $3.00/gallon level and their electric bills start to go up to the roof - which won't take long at the rate we'e going.

In the meantime, the most practical and profitable use for Ethanol from sugar cane is still Rum.

 

[kenvlach]

I only wanted to keep the issue alive -- after all, it was in the President's 'State of the Union' speech and gets DOE funds, hence, must be a (potentially) viable fuel alternative to petroleum?!? Can't you just see the US powered by switchgrass??? LOL.

Capital equipment investment for an ethanol plant must also be added to costs already mentioned.

I've never been to Brazil; perhaps they're on an ecologically disastrous route exploiting lands for a short-term gain. For cheap fuel, I meant the burning of bagasse. It seems they export ethanol profitably. Is it only because petroleum is currently so expensive? Or, because the US mandates it as a gasoline additive?

 

[fvincent]

kenvlach

sugar cane was introduced in Brazil in the XVI century. The production increased since then, but I cannot figure out what you mean by ecologically disastrous route. Do you think they are using Amazony for sugar cane production?


Montemayor

I cannot see where Brazilian economy is teetering on bankruptcy. And even if it were true what one thing has to do with the other?

The original ethanol program was in fact heavily subsidized. That was during militar government 30 years ago, as you probably know. But I have no information that the current phase of the program is based on such policy. Or at least such subsidies are only indirect (or hidden), associated only to the current obligation of adding 20% to 25% of ethanol to gasoline. The price/cost distortion associated to that is minor, however.

The main difference between original program (1975) and current situation is productivity: productivity increased from 2,204 to 5,500 liters of hydrous ethanol per hectare between 1975 and 1999. Today it reaches 6,000 liters/hectare

Naturally the viability of ethanol as option to petroleum depends on the oil costs. Current situation in Brazil shows a certain equilibrium in prices of gasoline and ethanol (energy basis). Some distortion in taxes does exist (gasoline has higher taxes in Brazil than ethanol). On the other hand Brazilian currency is overvaluated at least 20%, what makes oil cheaper.







fvincent

 

[owg]

For a recent, and frequently updated analysis of ethanol from corn, see

http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf

. It tends to support Pimentel's position.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[bimr]

If you take the time to read the Patzek paper identified by owg, you will see that the production of ethanol is absolutely useless as well as depressing.

Patzek shows that growing corn crops is environmentally disastrous because it takes fuel to grow corn and it is not sustainable because you will eventually destroy the soil by mining out the organic material. The amount of hydrocarbon fuel is fixed and the politically based decision to produce ethanol will accelerate the rate of depletion.

 

[bimr]

fvincent,

The following analysis supports Montemayor's comments on Brazil:

(

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/br.html#Econ

Kenvlach,

If the use of ethanol is such a good ideal, then why are there so few country's in the world trying to do it?

 

[StoneCold]

Most fuel problems boil down to this fact. Most travel (commuting) is a shipping problem, no one would suggest moving a 200lb object in a 6000lb box.

Regards
StoneCold

 

[fvincent]

bimr,

I don't think the analysis you mentioned does support Montemayor's comments on Brazil. Do you? What exactly?

As to your comments on why so few countries go after ethanol, I guess productivity is a key question. I cannot see much room for harvesting sugar cane in Europe, China or even USA (except some Southern states or Hawaii). As to Thailand, Australia, India and Brazil...

The analysis of Patzek is very interesting, however. But sugar cane ethanol would give very different figures, I guess.

fvincent

 

[bimr]

fvincent,

Montemayor's comments may have exaggerated Brazil problems, but the cia study does show that there are problems there:

"Brazil's foreign debt (a mix of private and public debt) is large in relation to Brazil's small (but growing) export base."

Characterized by large and well-developed agricultural, mining, manufacturing, and service sectors, Brazil's economy outweighs that of all other South American countries and is expanding its presence in world markets. From 2001-03 real wages fell and Brazil's economy grew, on average, only 2.2% per year, as the country absorbed a series of domestic and international economic shocks. That Brazil absorbed these shocks without financial collapse is a tribute to the resiliency of the Brazilian economy and the economic program put in place by former President CARDOSO and strengthened by President LULA DA SILVA. In 2004, Brazil enjoyed more robust growth that yielded increases in employment and real wages. The three pillars of the economic program are a floating exchange rate, an inflation-targeting regime, and tight fiscal policy, all reinforced by a series of IMF programs. The currency depreciated sharply in 2001 and 2002, which contributed to a dramatic current account adjustment; in 2003 to 2005, Brazil ran record trade surpluses and recorded its first current account surpluses since 1992. Productivity gains - particularly in agriculture - also contributed to the surge in exports, and Brazil in 2005 surpassed the previous year's record export level. While economic management has been good, there remain important economic vulnerabilities. The most significant are debt-related: the government's largely domestic debt increased steadily from 1994 to 2003 - straining government finances - before falling as a percentage of GDP in 2005, while Brazil's foreign debt (a mix of private and public debt) is large in relation to Brazil's small (but growing) export base. Another challenge is maintaining economic growth over a period of time to generate employment and make the government debt burden more manageable.

 

[fvincent]

bimr,

Thanks. I have read the text too, following the link you mentioned. And yes, there are problems. No question about that.

Anyway, the question is still the same: what has government debt to do with the increasing production of ethanol? I cannot see the connection... The only menace to (sugar cane) ethanol is a cut down on the oil price.. In this case, the mills just switch to sugar production (as they are flexible) and the fuelflex cars use gasoline...



fabio vincent

http://www.figener.com.br

 

[bimr]

One would think that sugar has many of the same problems as corn.

You are still mining nutrients from the soil. "Although sugar beets are grown in many areas of the U.S., they must be rotated with nonroot crops (1 beet crop per 4 year period is the general rule)."

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/meCh2.html

You cannot store sugar crops like you do for corn:

"But sugar crops must be dealt with fairly quickly before their high sugar and water content causes spoilage. Because of the danger of such spoilage, the storage of sugar crops is not practical."

http://www.ienica.net/crops/sugarbeet.htm

And probably the biggest problem with sugar is that it is not economical to grow sugar crops in the US. So you would have to import the sugar as well.

 

[fvincent]

Ok, But I mean sugar cane ethanol/sugar all the time...

fabio vincent

http://www.figener.com.br

 

[bimr]

fvincent<

I see your point now.

Patzek demonstrates in his study that growing crops is environmentally disastrous because it takes fuel to grow corn and it is not sustainable because you will eventually destroy the soil by mining out the organic material.

Patzek also states that the amount of hydrocarbon fuel is fixed and the politically based decision to produce ethanol will only accelerate the rate of depletion.

Montemayor is just saying that Brazil is already a debtor nation. Why would one desire to borrow additional money to subsidize a losing economical proposition?

It is the same issue as in the US. Your are benefitting the few who make up the sugar (or corn) lobby with government largess at the expense of everyone else through higher taxes.

 

[djack77494]

The only real intermediate to long range answers to the problems of energy and the environment are the only solutions which never seem to get serious consideration. They are population control and nuclear energy. Everything else is a short term solution or just fits niche situations.

 

[fvincent]

bimr,

Have you ever had the opportunity to check the energy balance of ethanol production derived from sugar cane? I guess you'd be surprised. The fact that corn derived ethanol is non-economical should not take you to conclude that all other sugar sources are not feasible. There is a wide gap between the two industries.

Sugar cane is 10-12% sugar. No starch. Just grinding and fermenting and concentrating...Ok, plus fertilizers, transport of the crops, goods and workers, equipment production, and so on...


The last numbers I have concerning the energy ratio for the production of sugar cane ethanor are: available energy divided by energy expenditure (all included: fertilizer, etc) equal to 8. That compares to 1.2 of corn ethanol.
Ok, according to Patzek the numbers are worse for corn, that is, only 0.9 (you lose energy when producing corn ethanol). Let's be conservative and apply the same reduction factor to the sugar cane. Instead of 8 we still have 7.2. More conservative? 6? 5? Still interesting, isn't it?


As to the debtor nature of the country, just take into account that a significant fraction of the new ethanol plants in Brazil are owned by European or American companies. No subsidies. Their risks...





fabio vincent

http://www.figener.com.br

 

[katmar]

I have been involved on the periphery of the ethanol business in South Africa for years, but I am by no means an expert on the economics. However, I have seen these fuel ethanol projects come up time and again, both sugar cane and corn based, and they simply do not get off the ground.

Even when the stillage is worked up as fertilizer and the corn DDGS is sold as animal feed the economics do not come right.

The problem is that every farmers co-operative wants to get in on the deal, and they base their capital cost estimates on wildly optimistic and unrealistic views. They announce their plans to the press and there is a huge hullabaloo, and then after a few months it all goes quiet. A friend of mine, who has a business supplying columns and heat exchangers, told me he has stopped even quoting on the jobs because the farmers get upset when he tells them he cannot build columns out of old oil drums.

Ethanol's time will come, but at the present oil price it is not yet viable. The only people who can afford the ethanol are the drinkers! djack77494 is right on the money with the comment on nuclear power. It is already happening, but people just don't like to talk about it. When we have cheap electricity from the nuclear plants that we can turn into steam in electrode boilers, maybe we can make cheap ethanol.

Katmar Software
Engineering & Risk Analysis Software

http://katmarsoftware.com

 

[mechprocess]

I agree with Montemayor about the Brazilian economy. I too lived down there. I also agree that there are no renewable energy sources waiting in the wings other than Generation IV potable closed fuel cycle nuclear plants. We can thank Bush for that. The first prototype is currently scheduled for start-up in 2012 at the Idaho National Lab in Idaho Flats. I think the answer will come from closed fuel cycle nuclear plants that can co-gen electricity, steam and hydrogen for fuel cells.

Codes for connecting to the Grid are still being developed by each state and should be completed by 2009. The best site for all information on renewable energy is the doe.gov. Just drill down from that site to where ever your interest takes you.

I commend Bush for talking about renewable sources such as liquefied coal, methanol, solar just because those areas can be used to recover energy and thereby reduce fossil fuel demand. Key to that are the Grid connection capabilities.

I see the future automobile power plants running on hydrogen fuel cells but only after those nuclear power plants get built. CNN thinks hydrogen is free. Hydride beds will be used as container devices for our cars.

Case in point. If renewable bio fuels are to exist, then we need a massive nuclear power source to provide the balance of energy that doesn't exist right now to make that happen.

Therfore, Montemayor is correct when he says

"All we've done is deplete our biggest and proven option: Nuclear Energy - something the environmental nuts should be very proud of"