Thoughts on ethanol-free gasoline?

[lkkms2]

... And does very little to reduce oil imports......

Not true. We now produce and use more ethanol than we import oil from Saudi Arabia.

 

[AndyH]

It seems that none of us have touched on the fact that the EROI for corn ethanol is very close to unity, perhaps even below it. The unfortunate bottom line is that corn ethanol as a fuel does not reduce the amount of fossil fuel consumed and therefore simply wastes the corn.

Perhaps corn ethanol has other important uses, but IMO we should avoid using it as a fuel.

It takes 10 calories of mostly fossil fuels to put 1 calorie of food on the American table.

I'm not sure that the EROEI for humans is positive.

My understanding of the laws of thermodynamics suggests that any EROEI calc that comes up at unity or above is omitting some important steps.

In other words, Reg, the problem with our industrial agriculture system is the agriculture system, not ethanol. The problem with EROEI calcs are the assumptions.

The topic is whether E0/G100 or E10/G90 is better than the other for cars that are only refueled every 30 or 60 days. The answer, according to the auto industry, the EPA, the ASTM, and the Southwest Research Institute (one of two independent labs that performs fuel and lubricant testing) is that they both have to meet the same specs and will behave the same in a 60 day period.

 

[AndyH]

But the huge production of Ethanol from corn has been nothing but a huge inefficient waste for the US economy. And efforts to mandate an increase in Ethanol to 15%, mainly because vehicle fuel efficiencies have improved and the corn growers need to maintain the demand for Ethanol from corn, are nothing less than shameful.

Finally someone said it the way it is...

Corn ehtanol has wreaked havoc in the U.S. agriculture. Google it!

Personally I use 120ml of Acetone with every other fillup. It keeps my '92 Honda's fuel injectors clean, moisture out, and boost my mpg by 2-3 mpg. I do not recommend it for newer cars. The other day I used a capful of Acetone in my lawn mower when it started coughing, and it helped instantly. That I would recommend anytime.

Here we go guys - everyone buy acetone!

Let's use all of the fossil fuel industry's disinformation and internet memes to pan a liquid fuel we can keep making until the sun stops shining, while dumping a hazardous chemical into the fuel tank that WILL dissolve plastics in the fuel system...brilliant.

Re-read the excerpts from the ASTM book on fuel standards. Note the parts that describe the harmful effects of peroxides and the existence of catalytic reactions that oxidize fuel. Then remember that acetone is hygroscopic like ethanol. Then recall that acetone dissolves many synthetics.

Acetone can polymerise rapidly due to heating and under the influence of air, light and on contact with a catalyst, strong oxidisers and metals such as copper and aluminium, with fire or explosion hazard. As a gas mixed with air, acetone is a fire and explosion hazard. On standing, acetone can form peroxides which may then explode. Acetone will react with iron and steel in the presence of moisture. Acetone is capable of dissolving plastic glasses frames, jewellery, pens and pencils, rayon stockings and other rayon garments.

http://www.npi.gov.au/resource/acetone

http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/acetone.asp
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18909941/...etone-damages-cars-other-answers#.UkKGdYZ958E

 

[AndyH]

Since we've fallen off the 'storage' focus and are soundly into the politics...

If ethanol is energy negative, damaging to food and the American Way, why is the petroleum industry working so hard not only to fund disinformation but to actively restrict access?

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/news/entry/rfa-requests-multi-agency-investigation

For franchisees like Zarco 66, the message that the oil industry is delivering is loud and clear: Stop selling renewable fuels, or face the consequences.
...
There are several concrete examples of Big Oil running afoul of U.S. laws. For instance, in the Zarco 66 situation, the oil industry is enforcing the unlawful act of “tying” agreements which violate Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Again - on the food/fuel or farmland/fuel topic:

Fiction: Ethanol is using corn meant for food resulting in higher food prices.

Fact: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) projects a record-setting corn harvest of over 13 billion bushels in 2013, an increase over last year’s harvest and close to the previous record crop. USDA expects that farmers will achieve a very healthy yield per bushel per acre despite the current heat wave and one of the slowest, wettest planting seasons on record.

Fact: In mid-August, the U.S. Department of Agriculture report notes that food prices are rising at a slower rate than expected. In addition, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations’ (FAO) Food Price Index shows less volatility this year than at any time in the past five years even despite the U.S. drought of 2012. The FAO Index continues to trend downward since peaking in February 2011.

Fact: Exposing a cheap Big Oil/Big Food PR stunt for what it is was, recent news reports state McDonalds, not ethanol, was to blame for the chicken wing shortage and resulting higher prices.

And now, to be quite blunt: Our number one problem on this planet is climate change caused by our continued use of ancient carbon. Gasoline is a significant part of the problem while ethanol is carbon neutral and cellulosic is carbon negative. Period. Everything else is background noise.

Yes, our agriculture system is broken. Yes, we use too many petrochemicals and pollute waterways and cause dead zones and destroy soil.

Yet I've made fuel from sugar, potatoes, and old bread. I have a small crop of jerusalem artichokes in the ground and will ferment those. I can make liquid fuels while restoring the ground, restoring the fertility of abused land, rebuilding soil, with no petrochemicals, and with no water contamination. None of this is new - it's been done since at least the 1970s - and still works, regardless of the lies coming from some academics or the American Petroleum Institute or the even the USDA. I'll guarantee you that the EROEI numbers for that operation look a LOT different from the 1.3-1.5 range! :evil:

How many of you can grow your own gasoline? Anyone?

Damn right - drive electric! Everywhere! But when we need a liquid transportation fuel, it's hard to find one as environmentally benign as ethanol.

PS - the EROEI for beef is negative. Same for chicken.

 

[RegGuheert]

It takes 10 calories of mostly fossil fuels to put 1 calorie of food on the American table.

I'm not sure that the EROEI for humans is positive.

???? Last time I checked, people aren't fuel. I don't really care what my EROEI is.

My understanding of the laws of thermodynamics suggests that any EROEI calc that comes up at unity or above is omitting some important steps.

Yet another non-sequitur argument, Andy? Once the losses move back to the sun, I'm not concerned about them. But making one enery unit of a poor-quality motor fuel by consuming one energy unit of a high-quality fuel AND a bunch of agricultural products makes absolutely no sense.

In other words, Reg, the problem with our industrial agriculture system is the agriculture system, not ethanol. The problem with EROEI calcs are the assumptions.

I'm not discussing assumptions, but rather reality. We use as much fossil fuel to make ethanol as we displace. Truly we have created a gigantic industry which does nothing more than waste natural resources that could be put to much better use.

 

[RegGuheert]

And now, to be quite blunt: Our number one problem on this planet is climate change caused by our continued use of ancient carbon.

I know you believe that, but the fact is that in the past ten years, while the atmospheric CO2 level has steadily risen, the global temperature has been completely flat. It has not risen AT ALL. How is that possible? It is possible because CO2 is NOT the dominant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. In fact, it is a way down the list. For it to even become number two, the concentration needs to significantly increase above the current levels. So, what is the dominant greenhouse gas on Earth? It is water vapor and it is roughly 100X as significant as CO2 at the current concentrations. Until scientists learn how to predict global cloud cover accurately, they will never get a handle on the global climate. Some scientists are working on solving that problem, but, frankly, their efforts are being impeded by those who can only see CO2 and nothing else.

Gasoline is a significant part of the problem while ethanol is carbon neutral and cellulosic is carbon negative. Period.

As Was shown in the link I provided burning ethanol results in NO REDUCTION in the amount of fossil fuels burned. It simply wastes agriculture which could be put to better use.

I'll guarantee you that the EROEI numbers for that operation look a LOT different from the 1.3-1.5 range! :evil:

Great! With your guarantee and five dollars, I can purchase a cup of coffe at Starbucks!

Anything below about 3 is not useful to sustain society.

 

[AndyH]

It takes 10 calories of mostly fossil fuels to put 1 calorie of food on the American table.

I'm not sure that the EROEI for humans is positive.

???? Last time I checked, people aren't fuel. I don't really care what my EROEI is.

Clearly.

My understanding of the laws of thermodynamics suggests that any EROEI calc that comes up at unity or above is omitting some important steps.

Yet another non-sequitur argument, Andy? Once the losses move back to the sun, I'm not concerned about them. But making one enery unit of a poor-quality motor fuel by consuming one energy unit of a high-quality fuel AND a bunch of agricultural products makes absolutely no sense.

It's not a non-sequitur and I suspect you're smart enough to know that. What it IS is a look at the entire system - because all of our fuels ultimately return to the sun. The only thing that causes different EROEIs is faulty analysis. I can ignore energy inputs and make ethanol look fantastic, and select inputs to make gasoline very negative. Read the comments in that TOD article - many are more useful and accurate than the original article.

But you are very misinformed if you think that ethanol is 'making one ener[g]y unit' by consuming more than one unit of inputs. That you would write that suggests you're not even TRYING to understand this.

In other words, Reg, the problem with our industrial agriculture system is the agriculture system, not ethanol. The problem with EROEI calcs are the assumptions.

I'm not discussing assumptions, but rather reality.

Clearly you are NOT interested in 'reality' because REALITY has already been covered in this thread and for whatever reason you refuse to recognize it. I can lead the horse to water, but that's it. Pray it's not a hydraulic fracturing produced 'water' pond...

Truly we have created a gigantic industry which does nothing more than waste natural resources that could be put to much better use.

:shock: And here we agree.

Yet keep in mind that the worst-case EROEI numbers for ethanol are calculated from INSIDE THIS WASTEFUL SYSTEM - with all the fossil-fuel inputs intact - and it's STILL POSITIVE - from both an energy and an emissions standpoint.

I strongly recommend that before anyone else tries to suggest that alternative liquid fuels should be stopped in favor of continued use of gasoline, that they examine how ethanol is made today, read the history of how the fossil fuel industry has lied for more than 100 years to keep their monopoly ("Internal Combustion" by Black is one recommendation), and then read "Environment, Power, and Society for the Twenty-First Century: The Hierarchy of Energy" by Howard Odum.

And come on down to S Texas and visit the Eagle Ford Shale - where water, land, and people are being poisoned to bring you your next tank of 'pure' gasoline.

Wilson said the study confirmed the I-Team’s findings: that several Marathon Oil facilities were out of compliance, sending clouds of toxic chemicals, including hydrogen sulfide and benzene into the air.

Earthworks reports the levels were so high in one instance; TCEQ investigators fled for safety, but never cited the operator or warn residents.

Wilson said, “They could’ve stopped and knocked on some doors and said, ‘hey, it’s dangerous here right now. You need to leave or stay inside.’”

http://www.kens5.com/news/I-Team-Wa...iving-in-Eagle-Ford-Shale-area-224480641.html

But only if you really want to deal in "reality"...

 

[AndyH]

And now, to be quite blunt: Our number one problem on this planet is climate change caused by our continued use of ancient carbon.

I know you believe that, but the fact is that in the past ten years, while the atmospheric CO2 level has steadily risen, the global temperature has been completely flat.

You might want to consider that this planet is about 70% water and that focusing only on "the global temperature" (actually, it's only the air temperature over land that you're talking about here) is a problem.

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.or...xamines-key-point-global-includes-oceans-too/

They don’t call it “land-surface warming,” and they don’t call it “oceans-only warming.”
It’s called “global warming” for a reason, and one of the principal reasons is that climate change takes into account not only the approximately 29 percent of the Earth’s surface that consists of land, our continents, but also the 71 percent comprised of oceans.

Guess what? The same type of 'broken logic' in the middle of a 'garbage in, garbage out' cycle is hurting your ability to understand ethanol, too. If it wasn't, you'd already recognized the value in the information that's come before in this thread.

Now I've lead you to two sets of keys- one to help you understand EROEI of ethanol, and one to help you understand climate change. I've given you hard, verifiable facts. What you do with them is up to you.

If you don't mind, I'm going to perform a soil analysis on my Jerusalem artichoke patch to see how they're using and restoring nutrients. That'll let me select another fermentable crop for the rotation. So long.

 

[RegGuheert]

Yet keep in mind that the worst-case EROEI numbers for ethanol are calculated from INSIDE THIS WASTEFUL SYSTEM - with all the fossil-fuel inputs intact - and it's STILL POSITIVE - from both an energy and an emissions standpoint.

Unfortunately, this statement shows that you are harboring a major misconception about the meaning of EROEI. The fact that EROEI is positive for ethanol ONLY means that at least one drop of ethanol was produced. When EROEI is below unity, the net energy to society is negative. In other words, in many of the counties in the the U.S. where corn is grown to make ethanol, we are both wasting energy AND corn. Only on the most fertile and productive farmland is the EROEI above 1, and even then, just barely.

I will say it again, we need to stop wasting our valuable resources producing ethanol. It is simply a sink for the corn and in many locations we use more fossil fuels than if we had simply burned it. It's utter nonsense.

 

[ebill3]

I will say it again, we need to stop wasting our valuable resources producing ethanol. It is simply a sink for the corn and in many locations we use more fossil fuels than if we had simply burned it. It's utter nonsense.

You can repeat it over and over, but those profiting from corn will just wink and have another sip of grain alcohol.

 

[TimLee]

... And does very little to reduce oil imports......

Not true. We now produce and use more ethanol than we import oil from Saudi Arabia.

But most of the ethanol is from corn, and it took nearly as much energy in oil to produce the corn and manufacture the ethanol. Therefore the US ethanol production has so far had very little impact on reducing oil imports.
How many gallons we make and use of it relative to the oil imported from Saudi Arabia is irrelevant, unless we are making the ethanol at a significant positive net energy ratio.
The effects of ethanol on oil from Saudi Arabia may change at some point if we begin making ethanol from more energy positive sources.
But so far there hasn't been very much energy positive ethanol production.
Eliminating the legislated ethanol use mandate would have an immediate positive effect on US oil use.
And reduce the significant cost impacts on food.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

With a forced mandate assuring demand for ethanol won't the free market and innovation follow to find cheaper ways to produce it? Or will it always be limited to corn?

And if you take the ethanol out, do you have to put the MTBE back in?

 

[TimLee]

With a forced mandate assuring demand for ethanol won't the free market and innovation follow to find cheaper ways to produce it? Or will it always be limited to corn?

And if you take the ethanol out, do you have to put the MTBE back in?

I think market forces are gradually improving availability of non-corn ethanol, but it is a very slow process. The legislated mandates for increasing non-corn ethanol are probably actually having more effect so far though.
I'm curious about the second question too.
I'm not sure whether the G100 sold in Chattanooga includes some other octane improvement or oxygenation agent besides MTBE.
I'm guessing it doesn't, although AndyH may be able to shed more info on this.
Chattanooga is non-attainment on some environmental criteria, but not sure it is non-attainment on the item(s) that would mandate oxygenation.
My guess is that the G100 here is meeting the octane requirement without MTBE, as I thought it had been banned.
Most likely the G100 is meeting octane requirement with its benzene content without a requirement for octane booster.

 

[AndyH]

Yet keep in mind that the worst-case EROEI numbers for ethanol are calculated from INSIDE THIS WASTEFUL SYSTEM - with all the fossil-fuel inputs intact - and it's STILL POSITIVE - from both an energy and an emissions standpoint.

Unfortunately, this statement shows that you are harboring a major misconception about the meaning of EROEI. The fact that EROEI is positive for ethanol ONLY means that at least one drop of ethanol was produced. When EROEI is below unity, the net energy to society is negative. In other words, in many of the counties in the the U.S. where corn is grown to make ethanol, we are both wasting energy AND corn. Only on the most fertile and productive farmland is the EROEI above 1, and even then, just barely.

I will say it again, we need to stop wasting our valuable resources producing ethanol. It is simply a sink for the corn and in many locations we use more fossil fuels than if we had simply burned it. It's utter nonsense.

The problem with this conversation, Reg, is not my understanding of EROEI - it's in your continued yet unsupported belief that ethanol is energy negative. That is simply WRONG. When one counts joules in and joules out, more is coming out - and that is with our 'worst case' fossil-fuel laced industrial ag system. Changing the ag system - or simply sidestepping it - makes ethanol very positive. I do agree that it IS possible to 'show' that corn ethanol is negative - but it's a dishonest process at best because it requires ignoring the entire output stream.

As you pointed out earlier by highlighting the documentary "King Corn", our corn processing system does not just input one kernel of corn and output one Frito chip. Corn comes in and it's converted to corn oil, high fructose corn syrup and dozens of other high-value output streams.

Industrial milling separates corn kernels into their components: germ, bran,
and endosperm. Starch, protein, fiber, oil, and moisture are extracted and
further refined into dozens of feed ingredients, sweeteners, alcohols, food
additives, and other products. Starch is sold to industrial users as modified or
specialty starch; processed into sugars and sweeteners like maltose, glucose,
liquid and solid sugars, and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS); or distilled
into ethyl alcohol for beverages, fuel, or pharmaceutical uses. Organic acids
and their salts are obtained by fermenting corn syrup or enzyme-treated
starch. Acids and salts include citric acid, widely used in pharmaceuticals
and foods; glutamic acids and their salts, including monosodium glutamate,
that are important food-flavoring agents; and lysine, an essential amino acid
used in animal feed. Corn-based starches, sugars, acids, alcohols and other
products are used in making paper, pharmaceuticals, textiles, paints, cleaning
solutions, and other items. Corn oil extracted from the endosperm is used
as cooking oil. Residuals from processing—hulls, fiber, germ meal, gluten,
distillers’ dried grains and steep water—are used as feed ingredients.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/153522/fds09k01.pdf

Ethanol plants do not make ONLY ethanol - and in many cases the ethanol is NOT the high-value product made in the plant! That is just one reason why, when the American Petroleum Institute or researchers they fund, say that ethanol is an energy-negative process, they are lying. Period.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Ethanol plants do not make ONLY ethanol - and in many cases the ethanol is NOT the high-value product made in the plant! That is just one reason why, when the American Petroleum Institute or researchers they fund, say that ethanol is an energy-negative process, they are lying. Period.

I'd like to understand more about this. I heard from one source that ethanol is made from a different part of the corn than Doritos come from, and as such isn't causing such a big impact on the food supply as people make it out to be.

 

[AndyH]

Ethanol plants do not make ONLY ethanol - and in many cases the ethanol is NOT the high-value product made in the plant! That is just one reason why, when the American Petroleum Institute or researchers they fund, say that ethanol is an energy-negative process, they are lying. Period.

I'd like to understand more about this. I heard from one source that ethanol is made from a different part of the corn than Doritos come from, and as such isn't causing such a big impact on the food supply as people make it out to be.

My understanding of this is primarily a 'view from 30,000 feet' but hopefully this will be useful.

http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/cropmajor.html
http://www.grains.org/index.php/key...-2012-13/us-corn-production-usage-and-outlook
http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn.aspx#.UkSBUoZ958F

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/industry-resources-coproducts
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/ethanol-facts-agriculture
http://www.iowarfa.org/documents/RFAFeedingFuture_000.pdf

According to the National Corn Growers Association, about eighty percent of all corn grown in the U.S. is consumed by domestic and overseas livestock, poultry, and fish production. The National Corn Growers Association also reports that each American consumes 25 pounds of corn annually. The crop is fed as ground grain, silage, high-moisture, and high-oil corn. About 12% of the U.S. corn crop ends up in foods that are either consumed directly (e.g. corn chips) or indirectly (e.g. high fructose corn syrup). Corn has a wide array of industrial uses including ethanol, a popular oxygenate in cleaner burning auto fuels. In addition many household products contain corn, including paints, candles, fireworks, drywall, sandpaper, dyes, crayons, shoe polish, antibiotics, and adhesives.

http://www.ncga.com/upload/files/documents/pdf/WOC 2013.pdf



The DDGs in the lower left are the distiller's grains produced by the fuel and beverage alcohol industry. These are higher value products than fuel ethanol and better animal feed than raw corn. They are replacing corn as an exported animal feed as the higher density feed costs less per calorie to ship than corn. Exported DDGs are less expensive for overseas users than our exported corn.
http://www.iowarfa.org/documents/RFAFeedingFuture_000.pdf

The key message that needs to be communicated, he tells EPM, is that the U.S. corn supply is growing, thanks to increased yield. According to the USDA, corn farmers produced an average yield of 152.8 bushels of corn per acre in 2010, up 30 percent from the average 20 years ago. Most markets for corn, such as feed, exports, food and industrial, have remained relatively flat during the past decade. Corn use for ethanol, on the other hand, has grown dramatically. “Ethanol has taken up that surplus,” he says. “Otherwise it would have been a burden on farmer’s income, because we’d driven prices down, and we would have had a reduction in acres, because there would be no end use for it.”

http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/8135/ethanol-one-market-for-a-growing-corn-supply

The fossil fuel industry has been fighting ethanol since at least the prohibition era. One of the messages they keep repeating is that fuel ethanol requires us to trade food for fuel. The truth of the matter is that ethanol production provided both food and fuel.



When making ethanol, yeast do the heavy lifting - they eat sugar and secrete CO2 and ethanol.

Very basic - think moonshiner here: One can boil corn to soften it, add yeast, let them eat and reproduce until the alcohol concentration kills them, and we have CO2, ethanol, and the rest of the corn - starch, fiber, oil, vitamins and minerals, amino acids, etc. that remain as distillers grains.

Next level: Boil the corn to soften it, treat with enzymes to convert starch to sugar, then bring in the yeast. We get more ethanol out, but also remove the two components of corn that cattle cannot digest - sugar and starch.

Cellulosic processes use different methods to release cellulose from the lignin 'glue' that binds them. Acid, pressure, enzymes, and solvents are used to separate cellulose and lignin, then convert cellulose to sugars. Then we're back to yeast.

Processing three units of corn or sorghum produces one unit of ethanol, one of CO2, and one unit of distillers grains.


Ethanol yield - gallons per ton - of various feedstocks:

Wheat: 85.0
Corn: 84.0
Sorghum: 79.5
Mesquite: 76.0
Manure (dairy cattle): 40.0
Sweet potatoes: 34.2
Sugar beets: 22.1

Ethanol yield - gallons per acre:

Cattails (single crop, managed, starch only): 2500
Cattails (in sewage, including cellulose): 10,000+
Sorghum (including cellulose): 3500
Sugarcane (tropical): 900
Sugarcane (US): 555
Corn: 214-392
Sweet potatoes: 190-255

 

[AndyH]

Based apparently on the paper summarized in The Oil Drum, Reg suggests that our energy sources must provide a 1:3 EROEI in order to support our industrial society. Does it?

How's the actual efficiency of the mythical 'pure' gasoline this thread is about?

When biologists look at the efficiency of oil, it isn't so good. How about 98 tons of plants per gallon?
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-10/uou-bm9102603.php
http://leonardo-energy.stg.o-a.be/sites/leonardo-energy/files/root/pdf/2006/Dukes_ClimChange1.pdf

"Can you imagine loading 40 acres worth of wheat – stalks, roots and all – into the tank of your car or SUV every 20 miles?" asks ecologist Jeff Dukes, whose study will be published in the November issue of the journal Climatic Change.

But that's how much ancient plant matter had to be buried millions of years ago and converted by pressure, heat and time into oil to produce one gallon of gas, Dukes concluded.

Dukes also calculated that the amount of fossil fuel burned in a single year – 1997 was used in the study – totals 97 million billion pounds of carbon, which is equivalent to more than 400 times "all the plant matter that grows in the world in a year," including vast amounts of microscopic plant life in the oceans.

"Every day, people are using the fossil fuel equivalent of all the plant matter that grows on land and in the oceans over the course of a whole year," he adds.

The only way we can calculate those 1:100 or 1:10 energy returns for crude oil is if we ignore the energy that went into the production of the biomass and the amount of time it takes to perform the conversion process.

This is why folks are working toward cellulosic ethanol production:

Perennial herbaceous plants such as switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) are being evaluated as cellulosic bioenergy crops. Two major concerns have been the net energy efficiency and economic feasibility of switchgrass and similar crops...

We managed switchgrass as a biomass energy crop in field trials of 3-9 ha (1 ha = 10,000 m2) on marginal cropland on 10 farms across a wide precipitation and temperature gradient in the midcontinental U.S. to determine net energy and economic costs based on known farm inputs and harvested yields. In this report, we summarize the agricultural energy input costs, biomass yield, estimated ethanol output, egrenhouse gas emissions, and net energy results...

Switchgrass produced 540% more renewable than nonrenewable energy consumed. Switchgrass monocultures managed for high yield produced 93% more biomass yield and an equivalent estimated NEY than previous estimates from human-made prairies that received low agricultural inputs. Estimated average greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from cellulosic ethanol derived from switchgrass were 94% lower than estimated GHG from gasoline. This is a baseline study that represents the genetic material and agronomic technology available for switchgrass production in 2000 and 2001, when the fields were planted. Improved genetics and agronomics may further enhance energy sustainability and biofuel yield of switchgrass.

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/2/464.full.pdf

One of the largest energy inputs for this study was nitrogen fertilizer - derived from fossil fuel and applied with diesel-powered farm equipment. To further increase the energy harvest, one can plant rows of native leguminous trees or shrubs in the switchgrass fields. The trees and their nitrogen-fixing fauna will provide nitrogen to the bioenergy crop without petrochemicals or diesel fuel. The trees can also provide a cellulose, oil crop, or food input as well.

We have a lot of possibilities for improving biofuel production. We do not have the same opportunities for increasing our supply of fossil fuels at any cost or at any EROEI.


edit...too many typos...sorry.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Interesting. This statement is along the lines of what I recall hearing:

FACT: Ethanol production does not reduce the amount of food available for human consumption. Ethanol is produced from field corn fed to livestock, not sweet corn fed to humans. Importantly, ethanol production utilizes only the starch portion of the corn kernel, which is abundant and of low value. The remaining vitamins, minerals, protein and fiber are sold as high-value livestock feed. An increasing amount of ethanol is produced from nontraditional feedstocks such as waste products from the beverage, food and forestry industries. In the very near future we will also produce ethanol from agricultural residues such as rice straw, sugar cane bagasse and corn stover, municipal solid waste, and energy crops such as switchgrass.

So if the starch wasn't used for ethanol production, would it be used for something else? I recall hearing something about forcing cattle to eat cornstarch to fatten them up in what sounded like a horribly inhumane process.

Another question, is more corn being grown just to get the starch for ethanol production than would otherwise be produced?

Boy, cattails in sewage looks like a real winner. I hope they are talking about the plant there.

 

[GRA]

Re the current state of commercial production of advanced biofuels in the U.S.:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/09/oig-audit-finds-doe-has-not-achieved-biorefinery-goals-despite-7-years-and-603-million-spent20130913-oig.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

On a more positive note:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/09/20130920-htl.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/09/20130918-novozymes.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/09/20130918-wang.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So it seems that we still don't have any commercial-scale cellulosic refineries in the U.S. but Brazil hopes to have one next year, and (as always) lab scale developments look promising.

 

[AndyH]

Interesting. This statement is along the lines of what I recall hearing:

FACT: Ethanol production does not reduce the amount of food available for human consumption. Ethanol is produced from field corn fed to livestock, not sweet corn fed to humans. Importantly, ethanol production utilizes only the starch portion of the corn kernel, which is abundant and of low value. The remaining vitamins, minerals, protein and fiber are sold as high-value livestock feed. An increasing amount of ethanol is produced from nontraditional feedstocks such as waste products from the beverage, food and forestry industries. In the very near future we will also produce ethanol from agricultural residues such as rice straw, sugar cane bagasse and corn stover, municipal solid waste, and energy crops such as switchgrass.

So if the starch wasn't used for ethanol production, would it be used for something else? I recall hearing something about forcing cattle to eat cornstarch to fatten them up in what sounded like a horribly inhumane process.

Another question, is more corn being grown just to get the starch for ethanol production than would otherwise be produced?

Boy, cattails in sewage looks like a real winner. I hope they are talking about the plant there.

There's been small-scale work with cattails and other plants in Texas and New Mexico. The beauty of this is that it produces fiber and energy while processing wastewater and performing bioremediation. A few months back I read that work is focused on developing a mechanized harvesting implement.

Cattle cannot digest sugar or starch. Most of the starch is converted to sugars by enzymes, and then the yeast metabolize sugars to produce heat, CO2, and ethanol. Overfeeding cattle raw corn changes the pH of their digestive system and makes the environment a better 'e coli incubator'...and that leads to illness and supports overuse of antibiotics. Feeding distillers grains is much more humane than feeding corn. Though I'd much rather the industry abandon 'concentrated animal feeding operations' and let the animals eat grass again...

Cornstarch is a product of the industrial corn system, but it's processed from the fraction of the corn supply that feeds the non-food and non-ethanol part of the system. Ethanol production does not affect starch production.

It appears that the EPA's renewable fuel standard has provisions for adjusting ethanol blending requirements so that ethanol production can throttle-back during drought years as it did in 2012.

For more detail, I recommend the "Ethanol Textbook: A reference for the beverage, fuel and industrial alcohol industries". This is the 4th edition. I think the latest edition is the 5th, but it's not free online as far as I can tell.
http://www.mhtg.org/system/uploads/attachment/2012/Alcohol_Textbook_4e__2003__RS_jenssen.pdf