Study attacks use of ethanol as a fuel
A study released from University of California-Berkeley finds that for every unit of energy yielded by ethanol, it takes 1.3 units to produce it from corn, and is nearly 3 times more expensive than gasoline per unit energy delivered. The study didn't take into account the $3B in federal and state subsidies that are given out to ethanol producers every year, which means that the true cost of ethanol is likely even higher. Ethanol is widely used as a fuel additive across the country, and in some areas can be found as a blend where it's the primary source of energy (so-called E85 is comprised of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline, and must be used only in vehicles designed for it). Since ethanol can be made from corn or other sources of biomass, it's attracting much attention as a source of renewable energy.
Additionally, ethanol might lead to more pollution than the highly toxic MTBE that it replaces. This is because
bacteria in the soil prefer ethanol to gasoline (a choice that many of our readers will agree with), and therefore will
break down less gasoline before it reaches underground water sources.
Fans of biodiesel will find that their fuels didnt fair much better, with soybeans yielding similar results to
corn-based ethanol, and sunflower-based biodiesel production requiring 2.2 times the amount of energy the fuel
eventually yields.
Based on this information, it appears that we havent found a free ride yet. It would take significant improvements
in the fermentation process to bring ethanol into parity with fossil fuels, but alternative sources of biomass such as
rapeseed and algae have shown promise for biodiesel production (they were not included in this study, and as such its
be justifiably criticized). For the time being, its probably best to think of such fuels as energy storage mechanisms,
and not actual energy sources.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Joseph Willemssen 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
Studies like these are all over the map. You can get pretty deep with these analyses. For example, most people don't know that, on average, only 1/3 of the energy from the raw fuel of a power plant ends up at their electrical outlet. Or that 80% or more of the energy in gasoline does something other than move the automobile it's fueling.
You start doing lifecycle analysis, then you can't start asking how much fuel it took to get the workers to a coal-fired generator, how much energy they use living at their home within driving distance of the plant, etc etc. You're always going to have to draw somewhat arbitrary lines and end up missing some input or impact.
That all needs to be kept in mind before accepting any conclusion one of these studies makes, because there's studies to support any option that one may be an advocate for.
Reply
conrad 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
A more detailed article from ScienceDaily also links to the Cornell press release about this study: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050705231841.htm
Ethanol has been a known pork barrel disaster for years. It's dispiriting to see such bad data about biomass fuels in general, but not surprising considering how much fossil fuel is used in agriculture both as an energy source and in fertilizer production.
Reply
Charles S 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
Boy, I was wondering when Autoblog was going to jump onto this story. Nope, not surprised at all, and neither was I surprised at the tone of the post.
My problem is not how people argue about the numbers, but the hyprocracy of all the trash talk.
"Additionally, ethanol might lead to more pollution than the highly toxic MTBE that it replaces."
Funny, the logic here is like saying MTBE is bad, but because ethanol is not perfect, it, too, has to be WORSE. First bacteria or not, MTBE fouls the water supply. Second, VERY IMPORTANT here, ethanol or not, gasoline in water supply is BAD too! So claiming that ethonal in gasoline is worse than just simply gasoline in ground water is just stupid!
I can go on all day about alternative fuel, but it's a waste of time for the audience here anyways. Rather I'd like to post a question: Right now, because of the hurricane in Mexico, gas prices just spiked again. Anywhere we drill that's new today may take up to 10+ years to finally reach the pump, and by that time, at the current rate of consumption, probably will NOT help. We are driving MORE, and most of the time, vehicles are conserving LESS. For people who want to trash anything and everything about alternative fuel, so what is the solution to our dependence on oil? Even if people are optimistic and think that we have at least 50+ years in oil, shall we all dump our gasoline cars in Year 50, and just hop onto the next "free ride"?
Personally, if people want US to abolish the ethanol program, BE MY GUEST! Without the threat of ethanol to curb gasoline prices, I guarentee you that gas prices will continue to climb FASTER. Good luck, America!
Reply
MarkF 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
I don't really care if Ethanol fuels (100% Ethanol or E85) are pork barrel, or if they consumer more energy than they produce. What I do care about is that I can buy E85 about 3 miles from my house for $1.50-$1.80 a gallon.
Reply
laserwizard 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
Once again a lot of mindlessness over an issue that isn't well argued. The conclusions of the reports do strike a blow to the conclusion that ethanol can be a viable substitute for petrochemical based energy sources; however, this assumes that the energy used to extract the ethanol are derived from petrochemical or coal-fired systems (whether direct or converted into electrical energy). It seems to me that if we were to extract ethanol from bio sources using solar or other renewable energy, this would be a superior alternative than to use gasoline as we do to power our vehicles.
I realize that there are shortcomings to straight electrical powered vehicles so having a liquid fuel such as ethanol in our current machines would be a superb "bridge" from this petrochemical generation to one without it.
I don't care if ethanol costs more or less than petroleum derived liquid fuels; that right now should be an irrelavent argument. Removing our dependence upon third world, two-bit Islamofacist regimes should take precedence over the dollars per gallon cost.
I agree that using petroleum/coal to convert biostuff into ethanol is plain stupid; however, there are alternatives to getting the energy input needed to extract that ethanol that should be explored. Using a combination of ethanol and/or electric/hydrogen systems would seem to be a great step in using yankee ingenuity to create a collective middle finger toward the moribund regimes in the Middle East.
Reply
JG3 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
The idea of being a crop failure away from severe fuel shortages is not exactly going to be a stable improvement over dealing with the Middle East.
Reply
Autoguy 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
Yes Mark but you might want to look at how fast your gas tank empties, since it is emptying about twice as fast. Which means you are paying the equivalent of 3 dollars a gallon to move your car.
Reply
Adam H. 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
Not true #6. Ethanol has ~25% less BTUs than gasoline per gallon, just as gasoline has about 25% less BTUs than diesel fuel. So it's NOT half the gas mileage and double the cost per gallon (relative to gasoline).
Also, no one ever mentions that it takes more BTUs of energy to deliver a gallon of gas than the gallon of gasoline actually delivers to the user. Gas is pumped, shipped, tankered, refined, shipped again to a distributer, and then shipped to the pump. Energy intensive? I think so...
Ethanol is also a blossoming industry. As I've said in other threads, companies would notbe investing in plants if they did not believe ethanol to be profitable without tax credits, should they dry up in 5 years. Period. No one is going to build a $50-100 million plant without some sort of guarantee that it will continue to pay dividends years into the future.
Reply
kap0w 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
Ethanol is subsidized to the tune of $3bn/year... did the authors of the survey count the "subsidies" that we pay for gasoline? Someone remind me again how may billions of dollars we've spent on this war in Iraq? How about the last one? Is stabilizing arguably the most turbulent and perma-screwed part of the world free? I count that as a gas subsidy. As was stated at the end of the article, there are other biomass alternatives (rapeseed and algae) that might be better. I'm no ethanol appologist, but saying that gas is "cheaper" without counting the fact that it comes largely from countries that hate us and is going to run out at a certain point sounds somewhat ridiculous to me.
Reply
Autoguy 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
Adam while my numbers might be wrong, the fact remains the same: using ethanol in your car is more expensive than gas because ethanol is less efficient.
A company is not going to build a plant without a guarantee that it will payoff in the future? You're kidding right? Companies do stupid stuff like that all the time. How often does a business build a building, rent out the space, and then go bankrupt? On your other point of energy usage I agree completely though.
Reply
Charles S 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
"The idea of being a crop failure away from severe fuel shortages is not exactly going to be a stable improvement over dealing with the Middle East."
Sooooo... a hurricane shutting down oil platforms is stability in prices? An accidental explosion at a refinery plant does NOT increase prices? An attack at a Saudi oil well won't send price futures prices sky-high?!?!
Nice try.
Reply
Eric Bryant 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
Charles,
I guess I'm not surprised at the tone of your response, either.
First, on the issue of MTBE. That stuff sucks, and the legislators that forced it upon the public should go to jail. How's that for a strong statement? But, I made the statement that I did about ethanol simplely because I thought it was interesting. MTBE came about because of knee-jerk reactions to other oxygenates, but ended up causing a much bigger problem than the chemicals it replaces. Wouldn't it suck if the same thing were true about ethanol? The bottom line is that I used the word "might", which for your sake I apparently need to start putting in bold italics.
I'd love to see us find a replacement for oil tomorrow. I'm investigating solar for supplimental power for my home. I've been an advocate of bicycling as a form of transportation. I've tried to approach hot-rodding from an environmentally-friendly perspective. I'm getting into the idea of biodiesel to run my diesel tractor. And the thought of running out of oil scares the living crap out of me, and I do indeed think we're going down a very bad path with our current energy policy. But if more and more of our electricity comes from natural gas, and if ethanol requires a whole bunch of electricity to produce, then I don't really see that as a solution - kinda sounds more like accelerating the problem.
I'm certainly not interested in writing-off biomass as a replacement for petroleum; did you even bother to read the last paragraph? I do think, however, that big tax subsidies are possibly leading energy companies down an unproductive path, and if emissions regulations continue to push diesels out of the US market, then we continue to increase the risk of an energy crisis.
Come up with a renewable source of electricity, or improve biomass conversion processes to the point where there's not a net loss of energy, and I'll be happy to shout out from the rooftops. For the time being, however, I cannot get too excited about what amounts to a relatively inefficient energy storage system.
Reply
Adam H. 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
Autoguy, multiple the price of a gallon of ethanol by 25% to account for the 25% drop in milage. Even at $1.80/ethanol gallon x 1.25 = $2.25. About the same price as 87 octane around here. Even taking into account the energy deficiency, it's still very comparable to gasoline - and has all those other benefits that every likes to talk about.
Reply
JW 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
Don't think of it as a politically motivated, inefficient response to a perceived problem. That will get you nowhere.
Just think of it as the Archer Daniels Midland tax.
Frankly, I think there are a few million or so people around the world who would rather be eating that corn so they can stave off starvation for a few more days, rather than us burning it so ADM execs can send nice big, fat contribution to Chuck Grassley & Co.
But that's just me.
Reply
Brian W 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
How to keep big oil happy and keep farmers on welfare?
Reply
John Riley 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
How does that math work when you consider that the farmers aren't going to park the tractors if you stop ethenol production? We are talking about surplus crops. I think that is how this whole thing got started in the first place - looking for some place to use up some of these crops.
I don' t think you have to be worried about being a 'crop failure away' from anything. First of all, there isn't enough starch or vegtable oil in the world to completely replace oil. We are talking about a tiny suppliment. Second, at any given time, there are a lot of these crops in storage.
As some point in the past, the US decided on a cheap and plentiful food policy. There have only been small efforts at controlling production. That is why you aren't a crop faliure away from hunger either. But it comes at the cost of subsidies to the farmers, which at the moment, includes subsidies for ethenol.
Reply
Mark Sumner 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
1) Ethanol is an energy storage system, like hydrogen, not an energy source. As such, it's much more efficient than other proposed storage systems in translating energy in to energy returned.
2) Add all the solar, wind, or nukes to the system you want, it won't save a drop of oil. The electrical and transportation systems in the US are decoupled. The primary source of electrical power is coal (not natural gas). Then nuclear, then hydro. There's only a trace of oil in our electrical mix, and almost all of that is in the form of emergency diesel generators.
So, if the goal is to magically find some new source of energy storage for vehicles that doesn't take more energy to store than it returns... give up. Just keep burning oil.
If the goal is to reduce our need for oil... build plug-in hybrids. Until you do that, make ethanol. Better, run plug-in hybrids on E8. Better still, make ethanol from cellulose products that return up to 4x as much ethanol per acre.
What you don't do: sit on your hands, keep burning oil, and expect hydrogen to come along one day and "save" us.
Reply
Paul 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
i think that people will find out the same about hydro fuel cells. the fuel cell and ethanol technologies are only feasable when produced with neuclear power. Right now they are inefficient and only done to appease the Kerry Edward crowd.
Reply
Conan the Grammarian 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
"For the time being, its probably best to think of such fuels as energy storage mechanisms, and not actual energy sources."
For the time being?? In fact, that's a good idea as long as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics holds, so you should probably start getting used to it.
Reply
Charles S 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
Mr. Bryant:
I do not know you, and it's nice that you listed your personal concerns. However, my comment about your tone is based on the pattern of your posts: your arguements are based on costs derived from statistics, and then you shape your article base on your personal views on the matter. Your pattern is to illustrate the excess costs, and then place blame on regulations, or in this case, indirectly, pork-barrel spending.
As a blogger, you have the right to write about and believe that ethanol is bad for us, but for me, I disagree. Without investments into products like ethanol, we will never move off oil. There may be alternatives, but if we follow history, it is the things that get financial backing that will work. Before there was railroads and airplanes, people thought that spending all that money into such projects are the wasteful, too. Are railroads and planes perfect solutions? The ultimate "free ride?"
I know that MTBE is terrible, but your example about bacteria and ethanol is irrelevant to the pollution aspect of your post. Your logic about pollution is flawed, and I don't know what you're trying to say to justify it: Any form of petrol in the soil and water is bad, and pinpointing ethanol as WORSE is just a bias comment.
While it is nice that you have mentioned about other biomass energy sources, the way I read your post is that you support the status quo. And if you read my comment, I ask people when do they expect us to start moving off of fossil fuel? If you do not like how our gov't is spending our money, is investing more into drilling really our solution? I realize in your comment, you are trying to tell us that's not what you mean. However, your main posts are always focusing on the price issues, but not about the long-term goals.
The price and lack of a better alternative is ALWAYS the core of the argument against alternative energy. There is no "perfect" alternative energy here, and I hope people do realize that even in the next ten years, we're not going to be able to come up with a solution that is so dense in energy as oil. But that does not mean that we should not invest into something other than oil. Oil may or may not run out tomorrow, but it will eventually be more expensive than ethanol or other fuel sources. So should we start investing into ethanol THEN? Do people actually think that an ethanol network of distribution can spring to life overnight?
As the cost for acquiring and process of oil have dropped dramatically over the years, it is possible that the cost of ethanol could come down quickly as well. As long as there are investments, there are chances for improvements. Mr. Bryant wants to write it off, but I would rather that we work on bridging the gap and give us alternatives to oil.
Reply