Ethanol study

[jimdahl]

Somewhat related to past energy discussions and, of course, agriculture, an ethanol study from Cornell and UC-Berkeley is hitting the wires today. The line pushing it into the headlines is:

But researchers at Cornell University and the University of California-Berkeley say it takes 29 percent more fossil energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces.

...

It takes 27 percent more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel and more than double the energy produced is needed to do the same to sunflower plants, the study found.

The cite their inclusion of energy contributed to growing the crop as the distinction between their study and previous government studies that show energy benefits from ethanol.

Though the particulars of ethanol production are way beyond my knowledge, I do wonder if they're not putting the cart before the horse; that is, will creating a market for ethanol lead to future efficiency increases that would flip that number around?

Regardless, my understanding is that our primary use for ethanol as a gasoline additive isn't to save energy, rather it's to reduce emissions and slow combustion (i.e. raise octane).

[Supertrex]

For years, the ethanol industry used the "alternative octane booster" and "renewable" arguments to support its existence and entitlement to government support. Out here in farm country, that stuff plays pretty well. It doesn't out on the coasts. Now with the Iraq war, the renewable argument is getting center stage as we search for ways to get away from "dependence on foreign oil".

As these studies confirm, regardless of what the supporters tell you, ethanol is not renewable. If you started with only ethanol as your fuel source, you would soon run out when you burned it to grow the crop and transport the end product to the distributors. Yes, we are getting better at fuel economy today so the old studies on this aren't as accurate, but they still have the correct conclusions.

Ethanol has about 70 percent of the BTU's of gas so fuel economy is worse too. With gas and ethanol pricing approximately equal (except in ND) ethanol is actually more expensive to use than good old gas.

I know that producers get pissed when they hear this, but ethanol is strictly a farm subsidy. It is not the answer and never will be. The whole industry has been artificially propped up by tax credits, etc. and now is further supported by government mandates that create an artificial market demand.

I know ethanol benefits our local economies and if we weren't subsidizing agriculture in this way, it would be some other, but we are not being very honest with ourselves about ethanol. I'd rather just give ag producers an additional amount of money than burn up the additional fossil fuels necessary to make ethanol work.

[NDSU grad]

When they say they included the energy used in producing the crops, I wonder if they include photosynthetic reactions. I've never seen a study on the sustainability of ethanol that did not take into account fossil fuel use for crop production. Most even go so far as to include energy needed for production of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, yet the numbers from this study are quite different from recent investigations on ethanol sustainability.

[CoteauRinkRat]

When they say they included the energy used in producing the crops, I wonder if they include photosynthetic reactions.  I've never seen a study on the sustainability of ethanol that did not take into account fossil fuel use for crop production.  Most even go so far as to include energy needed for production of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, yet the numbers from this study are quite different from recent investigations on ethanol sustainability.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very interesting point, I never thought of that angle before.

[IowaBison]

...In assessing inputs, the researchers considered such factors as the energy used in producing the crop (including production of pesticides and fertilizer, running farm machinery and irrigating, grinding and transporting the crop) and in fermenting/distilling the ethanol from the water mix. ...

I've seen studies before that came up with about the same number (2x % versus 29% for this one).

Ethanol is a scam, but as an economist, I deal on price; politics and physics be damned. Today it (barely) makes financial sense to operate a flexible fuel vehicle, but I am thinking about getting one. (If I were an environmental economist I would definitely buy one.)

Go Cyclones!

[ScottM]

I know that producers get pissed when they hear this, but ethanol is strictly a farm subsidy.

Same goes for a number of the newer "hybrid" vehicles coming out. You get a nice tax credit if you buy one, even though the hybrid Accord gets only about 2 more mpg than their standard V-6. Power vs. conservation.

As I recall, there have been a number of earlier studies that questioned the actual benefits of ethanol, but they were also derided by ag-interest groups.

[airmail]

Ethanol has about 70 percent of the BTU's of gas so fuel economy is worse too. With gas and ethanol pricing approximately equal (except in ND) ethanol is actually more expensive to use than good old gas.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One of my vehicles can use E85, and I made an unscientific comparison of cost with E85 and regular fuel. According to my "sudo-study" E85 has to be priced 30 cents per gallon cheaper than regular fuel for me to see any benefit. This pertains to the lost mileage using the corn squeezins.

[IowaBison]

One of my vehicles can use E85, and I made an unscientific comparison of cost with E85 and regular fuel. According to my "sudo-study" E85 has to be priced 30 cents per gallon cheaper than regular fuel for me to see any benefit. This pertains to the lost mileage using the corn squeezins.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is probably a lower bound for the difference. Most flexible fuel vehicles go about 2/3 to 3/4 the distance on E85 than they do on gasoline.

At $2.20 a gallon you'll need about $1.65 E85 to brake even. With the fuel tax brake in North Dakota you'll probably save money in the short run.

[IowaBison]

e85

Apparently the flexible fuel version of the Ford Taurus has difficulty starting at low temperatures (see upper right hand side of second page).

[airmail]

That is probably a lower bound for the difference.

[Supertrex]

e85

Apparently the flexible fuel version of the Ford Taurus has difficulty starting at low temperatures (see upper right hand side of second page).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Regardless of what Harold Newman puts on his billboards, ethanol is anything but "Sure Starting" in the winter. We've known this for years... With less energy and lower flamability, it is harder starting overall. Coupled with the fact that engines take more energy to turnover when the temps are below zero and it just becomes common sense that ethanol is actually a hard "starting" fuel and should be supplemented with ether...

[Supertrex]

e85

Apparently the flexible fuel version of the Ford Taurus has difficulty starting at low temperatures (see upper right hand side of second page).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fuel economy comparisons on highway miles will be show a closer gap than in town driving, where energy necessary to create momentum burns more fuel...