Ethanol

[Psychoclown]

I've been looking at ethanol lately. I've always heard processing ethanol was a net energy loss. In other words, the energy it takes to grow, transport, process, and then distribute ethanol is greater than the energy ethanol provides. The only reason it's cheaper than gasoline is due to government subsidies. My understand has always been that ethanol isn't really a green energy or something that could help us achieve energy independence, but that it's just an excuse to provide massive subsidies to the agriculture sector.

Then I began doing a little reading. I found several articles claiming exactly what I said. The two prominent researches quoted by those against ethanol are David Pimental and Tad Patzek. But I've found other articles claiming that their findings are either outdated, wrong, or misrepresent the facts. Some articles claim ethanol is nearly a two to one net energy gain now, due to increased efficiences in both the growing of corn and the refining process. Other articles claim that all of our modern energy resources are net energy losers.

This site claims that ethanol is a only a net loss ifyou factor in the free, renewable energy of the sun (which obviously should not be factored in) and that gasoline is a net energy loss
http://skyways.lib.ks.us/ksleg/KLRD...ces/Jan_mtg/White_Energy_Committee_010606.pdf

This site reports Pimental and Patzek's findings, that ethanol uses 27 to 118 percent more fossil fuel energy to produce than it provides Net Energy: More Harm than Good? | Energy Justice Network

This blog claims the US Department of Agriculture released a report stating that for every BTU used to produce ethanol, we get 2.3 BTU's of energy from ethanol The increasing net energy gain of ethanol | NathanSchock

So which is it? Is ethanol a viable alternative to gasoline that may one day helpus achieve energy independence? Or is it a massive boondoggle subsidy to agribusiness that has no hope of ever addressing our energy needs?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I've been looking at ethanol lately. I've always heard processing ethanol was a net energy loss. In other words, the energy it takes to grow, transport, process, and then distribute ethanol is greater than the energy ethanol provides. The only reason it's cheaper than gasoline is due to government subsidies. My understand has always been that ethanol isn't really a green energy or something that could help us achieve energy independence, but that it's just an excuse to provide massive subsidies to the agriculture sector.

Then I began doing a little reading. I found several articles claiming exactly what I said. The two prominent researches quoted by those against ethanol are David Pimental and Tad Patzek. But I've found other articles claiming that their findings are either outdated, wrong, or misrepresent the facts. Some articles claim ethanol is nearly a two to one net energy gain now, due to increased efficiences in both the growing of corn and the refining process. Other articles claim that all of our modern energy resources are net energy losers.

This site claims that ethanol is a only a net loss ifyou factor in the free, renewable energy of the sun (which obviously should not be factored in) and that gasoline is a net energy loss
http://skyways.lib.ks.us/ksleg/KLRD...ces/Jan_mtg/White_Energy_Committee_010606.pdf

This site reports Pimental and Patzek's findings, that ethanol uses 27 to 118 percent more fossil fuel energy to produce than it provides Net Energy: More Harm than Good? | Energy Justice Network

This blog claims the US Department of Agriculture released a report stating that for every BTU used to produce ethanol, we get 2.3 BTU's of energy from ethanol The increasing net energy gain of ethanol | NathanSchock

So which is it? Is ethanol a viable alternative to gasoline that may one day helpus achieve energy independence? Or is it a massive boondoggle subsidy to agribusiness that has no hope of ever addressing our energy needs?

I question the validity of the report that ethanol is a net energy producer.
Did they account for the fertilizer and all the other energy related materials used to process it?
Doubtful in my opinion.

The entire industry is subsidized from creation to sale of.
If it were such a great producer of energy, why not switch entirely to ethanol?

 

[Psychoclown]

I question the validity of the report that ethanol is a net energy producer.
Did they account for the fertilizer and all the other energy related materials used to process it?
Doubtful in my opinion.

The entire industry is subsidized from creation to sale of.
If it were such a great producer of energy, why not switch entirely to ethanol?

Very good question. It's one that popped into my mind as well. If ethanol truly is a two to one energy gain, why aren't we making a major push to switch over? It seems to me there has to be some reason we're not making that push. But on the other hand, Brazil is making a push, though they able to use sugar cane to produce ethanol, which is apparently more efficient than corn. Though we could be producing sugar cane ethanol. Florida, Lousiania, Texas, and Hawaii all have suitable climates for sugar cane. Which leads to another question, if sugar cane is more efficient, why aren't we focusing on that? Of course the cynic in me says the answer is that sugar cane farmers don't have a powerful lobbyist force to bribe politicians with.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Very good question. It's one that popped into my mind as well. If ethanol truly is a two to one energy gain, why aren't we making a major push to switch over? It seems to me there has to be some reason we're not making that push. But on the other hand, Brazil is making a push, though they able to use sugar cane to produce ethanol, which is apparently more efficient than corn. Though we could be producing sugar cane ethanol. Florida, Lousiania, Texas, and Hawaii all have suitable climates for sugar cane. Which leads to another question, if sugar cane is more efficient, why aren't we focusing on that? Of course the cynic in me says the answer is that sugar cane farmers don't have a powerful lobbyist force to bribe politicians with.

We have a sugar lobby, a powerful one. :lol:

See sugar imports are on a quota system, to keep domestic sugar prices high.
We pay more than double for sugar in the U.S. than what it costs on the world market.

 

[Psychoclown]

Didn't know that. Another sad example of how politicians that supposedly represent our interests really represent the interests of powerful special interests.

Anyway, back to the topic of the thread, does anyone know why we're not making a bigger push for ethanol? Are the reports proclaiming its energy efficiency bogus? I've always been down on ethanol as a wasteful subsidy but if it truly has a 2 to 1 energy gain and could replace gasoline, I'd be happy to reconsider that position.

 

[Psychoclown]

Never did get much a response on this and since the Loft is now open to all (at least temporarily), I thought maybe it was worth a bump. The links in my OP may be outdated, as this was posted several years ago, but my question remains the same. Is Ethanol a realistic alternative fuel or is it just a cover for massive agricultural subsidies?

The fact that the market doesn't seem to be moving that way on its own and ethanol still requires all these subsidies makes me tend to believe its future isn't all that promising. But I'm always open to new facts.

 

[Riveroaks]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance

The wiki on this says it depends on what you make the ethanol from.

For corn, you get 1.3 units of energy from the amount of ethanol produced compared with 1 unit of fossil fuels input to the process -- not much gain.

For biodiesel 2.5 units.

For cellulosic ethanol 2 units or more.

For sugarcane 8 units.

All the studies are contested however.

 

[Psychoclown]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance

The wiki on this says it depends on what you make the ethanol from.

For corn, you get 1.3 units of energy from the amount of ethanol produced compared with 1 unit of fossil fuels input to the process -- not much gain.

For biodiesel 2.5 units.

For cellulosic ethanol 2 units or more.

For sugarcane 8 units.

All the studies are contested however.

From the wiki you posted:

In addition, there is no consensus on what sort of value to give the rest of the corn (such as the stalk), commonly known as the 'coproduct.' Some studies leave it on the field to protect the soil from erosion and to add organic matter, while others take and burn the coproduct to power the ethanol plant, but do not address the resulting soil erosion (which would require energy in the form of fertilizer to replace). Depending on the ethanol study you read, net energy returns vary from .7-1.5 units of ethanol per unit of fossil fuel energy consumed. For comparison, that same one unit of fossil fuel invested in oil and gas extraction (in the lower 48 States) will yield 15 units of gasoline, a yield an order of magnitude better than current ethanol production technologies, ignoring the energy quality arguments above and the fact that the gain (14 units) is both declining and not carbon neutral.[17]

So there is still debate about if ethanol is even a net energy producer (the range is from 0.7 to 1.5 units of energy for every unit used in producing it). And even if we take the best number, 1.5, its still a long way from gasoline at 15 units of energy for every unit to extract/produce it. Ethanol seems to be no where near as efficient as gasoline and based on this information, seems to be a massive boondoggle to support big agri-business and has nothing to do with energy independence.

 

[Riveroaks]

From the wiki you posted:


So there is still debate about if ethanol is even a net energy producer (the range is from 0.7 to 1.5 units of energy for every unit used in producing it). And even if we take the best number, 1.5, its still a long way from gasoline at 15 units of energy for every unit to extract/produce it. Ethanol seems to be no where near as efficient as gasoline and based on this information, seems to be a massive boondoggle to support big agri-business and has nothing to do with energy independence.

Everyone should believe in something.

I believe I will have another drink.

Ethanol is better for drinking than as fuel.

 

[RAMOSS]

Never did get much a response on this and since the Loft is now open to all (at least temporarily), I thought maybe it was worth a bump. The links in my OP may be outdated, as this was posted several years ago, but my question remains the same. Is Ethanol a realistic alternative fuel or is it just a cover for massive agricultural subsidies?

The fact that the market doesn't seem to be moving that way on its own and ethanol still requires all these subsidies makes me tend to believe its future isn't all that promising. But I'm always open to new facts.

Ethanol from corn is horrendously bad. However, there is some movement to get sugar producing algae , which reduces the cost of sugar production drastically. This would be a much more efficient source of ethanol, and would have the advantage of being able to use land not suitable to agriculture, and and be much more economical.

There also is one that has the algae produce ethanol directly, but I don't think they are as far advanced as the one that produces sugar. (but getting closer).

IN case you are interested, the two companies involved are proterro for the sugar production, and algenol for the direct ethanol production. It will be interesting if they get someplace.. but i am not going to hold my breath for them to actually be COMMERICAL.


Algenol

Proterro

 

[American]

Has anyone address the loss of power, economy and corrosion on the modern gasoline engine? Don't forget to factor that into the equation on ethanol.

 

[PirateMk1]

Has anyone address the loss of power, economy and corrosion on the modern gasoline engine? Don't forget to factor that into the equation on ethanol.

Modern engines are designed to operate with ethanol in quantities of 85% depending on the motor. Modern seals and materials are designed to withstand the effects of ethanol. Corrosion and seal degradation are mostly prevalent in older vehicles not designed to run on ethanol or have any mixed into the gasoline. The lack of power is because of the compression being lower than what is optimal for a ethanol engine which means less power. A typical modern motor will have an 11:1 or thereabouts compression ratio. A pure ethanol motor the compression ration would be about 20:1. If you have a turbo or supercharger then this can be more easily adjusted for with increasing or decreasing the pressure going into the cylinders and thereby partially make up for the compression ratio.

 

[PirateMk1]

I've been looking at ethanol lately. I've always heard processing ethanol was a net energy loss. In other words, the energy it takes to grow, transport, process, and then distribute ethanol is greater than the energy ethanol provides. The only reason it's cheaper than gasoline is due to government subsidies. My understand has always been that ethanol isn't really a green energy or something that could help us achieve energy independence, but that it's just an excuse to provide massive subsidies to the agriculture sector.

Then I began doing a little reading. I found several articles claiming exactly what I said. The two prominent researches quoted by those against ethanol are David Pimental and Tad Patzek. But I've found other articles claiming that their findings are either outdated, wrong, or misrepresent the facts. Some articles claim ethanol is nearly a two to one net energy gain now, due to increased efficiences in both the growing of corn and the refining process. Other articles claim that all of our modern energy resources are net energy losers.

This site claims that ethanol is a only a net loss ifyou factor in the free, renewable energy of the sun (which obviously should not be factored in) and that gasoline is a net energy loss
http://skyways.lib.ks.us/ksleg/KLRD...ces/Jan_mtg/White_Energy_Committee_010606.pdf

This site reports Pimental and Patzek's findings, that ethanol uses 27 to 118 percent more fossil fuel energy to produce than it provides Net Energy: More Harm than Good? | Energy Justice Network

This blog claims the US Department of Agriculture released a report stating that for every BTU used to produce ethanol, we get 2.3 BTU's of energy from ethanol The increasing net energy gain of ethanol | NathanSchock

So which is it? Is ethanol a viable alternative to gasoline that may one day helpus achieve energy independence? Or is it a massive boondoggle subsidy to agribusiness that has no hope of ever addressing our energy needs?

What is not widely known is the "byproducts" of ethanol production from corn especially is high grade high protein animal feed. If you were serious about ethanol production maximization then you would use another crop primarily sugar cane and sugar beats as a majority of the crop processes into ethanol with a minimal amount of protein feed, and other byproduct.

The catch is that ethanol from corn is NOT the primary product, it is the byproduct of high grade feed production and under normal circumstance would be considered a hazardous material to be disposed of if it couldn't be sold. Basically congress was lobbied so the corn processors could make a profit getting rid of the byproduct of the high feed manufacturing by requiring its use in gasoline.

 

[American]

Modern engines are designed to operate with ethanol in quantities of 85% depending on the motor. Modern seals and materials are designed to withstand the effects of ethanol. Corrosion and seal degradation are mostly prevalent in older vehicles not designed to run on ethanol or have any mixed into the gasoline. The lack of power is because of the compression being lower than what is optimal for a ethanol engine which means less power. A typical modern motor will have an 11:1 or thereabouts compression ratio. A pure ethanol motor the compression ration would be about 20:1. If you have a turbo or supercharger then this can be more easily adjusted for with increasing or decreasing the pressure going into the cylinders and thereby partially make up for the compression ratio.

Sources?

 

[PirateMk1]

Sources?

Here. Alcohol engine building is mostly done in racing circles so there is not a large amount of people and knowledge on the net for quotation for the obvious reasons.


Race fuel - Alcohol fuels

NINETEEN TO ONE

We have just mentioned the higher possible compression ratio used with alcohol and the limit that can be used with any particular fuel depends on the tendency of the fuel to detonate.

As a rough guide the ratio for petrol is limited to about ten to one, or with certain additives to as much as 12 to one. With alcohol, however, you can go up to 19 to one or higher in certain cases. (For all practical purposes however, 14 to one should be considered the maximum usable ratio in modern short stroke automotive engines.)

The possible use of a much higher ratio, of course, means we get a higher power output from the engine, and this, in fact, is almost the main advantage of alcohol fuel

.

Note in Scandinavia they are using modified diesel motors in buses to ethanol and have been doing do since 1987.

 

[American]

Here. Alcohol engine building is mostly done in racing circles so there is not a large amount of people and knowledge on the net for quotation for the obvious reasons.


Race fuel - Alcohol fuels

.

Note in Scandinavia they are using modified diesel motors in buses to ethanol and have been doing do since 1987.

Current typical gasoline engines in automobiles are not 10:1. That's ridiculous, as the octane isn't high enough.

 

[Top Cat]

I remember selling 102 ethyl when I was in HS. Regular was 24.9 a gallon. I couldn't fit $3 worth in my VW bug.

 

[PirateMk1]

Current typical gasoline engines in automobiles are not 10:1. That's ridiculous, as the octane isn't high enough.

The GM LS-3 motor is 10.7:1. The higher compression is achieved in the newer motors because of better understanding of squish turbulence in motors and the use of piston skirt coolers and direct high pressure injection.

 

[American]

The GM LS-3 motor is 10.7:1. The higher compression is achieved in the newer motors because of better understanding of squish turbulence in motors and the use of piston skirt coolers and direct high pressure injection.

That's not a typical engine.

 

[PirateMk1]

That's not a typical engine.

The LS3 is a typical modern engine. The turbocharged ECOBOOST motors Ford makes are 10:1 compression ratios.

In 2012, Mazda released new petrol engines under the brand name SkyActiv with a 14:1 compression ratio (U.S. models have a 13:1 compression ratio to allow for 87 AKI octane), to be used in all Mazda vehicles by 2015.[2][3][4]

Wikipedia

A technique used to prevent the onset of knock is the high "swirl" engine that forces the intake charge to adopt a very fast circular rotation in the cylinder during compression that provides quicker and more complete combustion. It is possible to manufacture gasoline engines with compression ratios of over 11:1 that can use 87 (MON + RON)/2 (octane rating) fuel with the addition of variable valve timing and knock sensors to delay ignition timing. Such engines may not produce their full rated power using 87 octane gasoline under all circumstances, due to the delayed ignition timing. Direct fuel injection, which can inject fuel only at the time of fuel ignition (similar to a diesel engine), is another recent development which also allows for higher compression ratios on gasoline engines.

 

[American]

The LS3 is a typical modern engine. The turbocharged ECOBOOST motors Ford makes are 10:1 compression ratios.

Wikipedia

Turbocharged.....which improves the volumetric efficiency are actually lower compression engines. You are speaking an effective compression ratio. What are you arguing over? They are still running regular gasoline. A naturally aspirated high compression engine requires premium. A turbocharged engine like ecoboost does not. Also VVT also comes into play.

 

[PirateMk1]

Turbocharged.....which improves the volumetric efficiency are actually lower compression engines. You are speaking an effective compression ratio. What are you arguing over? They are still running regular gasoline. A naturally aspirated high compression engine requires premium. A turbocharged engine like ecoboost does not. Also VVT also comes into play.

You said that it was ridiculous that modern gasoline engines have over 10:1 compression ratios and asked me to cite where they do. Hence my responses. As I said before typical modern motors have very high compression ratios, and that alcohol motors to take advantage of alcohols properties have to be even higher for similar efficiencies, and that yes a alcohol motor can get similar efficiency to a gas motor.

Please also note that many modern high compression NA (up to about 11:1) motors can run on 87 octane regular fuel.

 

[American]

You said that it was ridiculous that modern gasoline engines have over 10:1 compression ratios and asked me to cite where they do. Hence my responses. As I said before typical modern motors have very high compression ratios, and that alcohol motors to take advantage of alcohols properties have to be even higher for similar efficiencies, and that yes a alcohol motor can get similar efficiency to a gas motor.

Most engines are not turbocharged, which is not really a high compression engine.

 

[PirateMk1]

Most engines are not turbocharged, which is not really a high compression engine.

I didn't say most were turbocharged. Many of fords are perhaps. But you will find many manufactures staying with naturally aspirated motors which are for the most part over 10+:1 compression with rare exception. Noticed I used fords turbo charged series which would have the LOWEST compression ratios BECAUSE of the turbocharging. Their ratios are 10:1, turbocharged rated for 87 octane fuel. Lets look at GM's Ecotec line which has Turbo and non-turbo variants. The Turbocharged variant is 10:1 like ford. The non-turbo variant is 12.5:1 rated for 87 octane fuel. As you can see 10+:1 compression ratios is not only practical on 87 octane but fairly commonplace in newer motors.

 

[cpwill]

I've been looking at ethanol lately. I've always heard processing ethanol was a net energy loss. In other words, the energy it takes to grow, transport, process, and then distribute ethanol is greater than the energy ethanol provides. The only reason it's cheaper than gasoline is due to government subsidies. My understand has always been that ethanol isn't really a green energy or something that could help us achieve energy independence, but that it's just an excuse to provide massive subsidies to the agriculture sector.

Then I began doing a little reading. I found several articles claiming exactly what I said. The two prominent researches quoted by those against ethanol are David Pimental and Tad Patzek. But I've found other articles claiming that their findings are either outdated, wrong, or misrepresent the facts. Some articles claim ethanol is nearly a two to one net energy gain now, due to increased efficiences in both the growing of corn and the refining process. Other articles claim that all of our modern energy resources are net energy losers.

This site claims that ethanol is a only a net loss ifyou factor in the free, renewable energy of the sun (which obviously should not be factored in) and that gasoline is a net energy loss
http://skyways.lib.ks.us/ksleg/KLRD...ces/Jan_mtg/White_Energy_Committee_010606.pdf

This site reports Pimental and Patzek's findings, that ethanol uses 27 to 118 percent more fossil fuel energy to produce than it provides Net Energy: More Harm than Good? | Energy Justice Network

This blog claims the US Department of Agriculture released a report stating that for every BTU used to produce ethanol, we get 2.3 BTU's of energy from ethanol The increasing net energy gain of ethanol | NathanSchock

So which is it? Is ethanol a viable alternative to gasoline that may one day helpus achieve energy independence? Or is it a massive boondoggle subsidy to agribusiness that has no hope of ever addressing our energy needs?

I think the proof is rather in the pudding. If Ethanol took that much less energy to produce that much more energy, it wouldn't require government subsidy to compete with gasoline. That the Ethanol market would collapse without government support tells the truest tale.