Grain ethanol: wack 10

Robert Rapier has all your (grain) ethanol-bashing needs covered with this latest salvo:

My opposition to ethanol is primarily due to the inefficiency of the process. My opening commentary here is primarily aimed at grain ethanol. ... To make ethanol, we use petroleum-fueled tractors to plow the fields. We apply petroleum-based herbicides to kill the weeds. We apply petroleum-based pesticides to kill the bugs. We apply petroleum-based fertilizers to feed the plants. We harvest the corn with petroleum-fueled tractors, and ship the corn to the ethanol plants in petroleum-fueled trucks. The ethanol plants are natural gas hogs, consuming enormous quantities to ferment and purify an ethanol solution that is primarily water. We then ship the ethanol, often halfway across the country, in petroleum-fueled trucks. The customer on the receiving end usually pays less than market price for the ethanol, due to the subsidies, which are paid by taxpayers. Then, they suffer a decrease in gas mileage, meaning they have to fuel up more often.

Some of the proponents think adoption of ethanol is a way to "stick it to Big Oil". What they overlook is that Big Oil benefits greatly at all steps of the ethanol process. They make the fossil fuels that drive the tractors. They supply the petrochemicals that make the fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. And who do you think is the largest natural gas producer in the U.S.? I will give you a hint: One of the members of "Big Oil".

...

... So, in light of all this, I have to ask if it actually makes sense to support such a process. Wouldn't we be far better off just using the natural gas to directly fuel our vehicles? Every step in the process of making ethanol has efficiency losses. The more steps in the process, the higher the efficiency losses. Every BTU of heat that ends up radiating into the environment during the process is a BTU that did no useful work. By directly using the natural gas to fuel the vehicles, the cost would be far lower to the consumer and the taxpayer, and the efficiency much greater. Billions of dollars of subsidies would be eliminated in the process. Why, oh why do we continue down this insane path?

Why indeed? Read the whole thing.

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Biodiversivist's avatar

    Biodiversivist Posted 2:05 pm
    19 May 2006

    Wack indeedThat wasn't a debate. That was a schooling (although, a polite one).

    In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

    Permalink

  2. odograph Posted 11:21 pm
    19 May 2006

    E15I asked a few days ago why we had this E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline), when there wasn't that much ethanol.  From Robert's article:
    "If we turned 100% of the corn crop into ethanol, we would produce the equivalent of less than 15% of our annual gasoline consumption."
    Based on this we only have enough ethanol to make E15 everywhere (or E85 at 15% of our stations and in 15% of our cars, nationwide).
    Where is this crazy, impossible, push for "E85 everywhere" coming from?

    Permalink

  3. odograph Posted 11:22 pm
    19 May 2006

    corn chipsand or course, the 15% is itself an impossible upper limit, with no more corn foodstuffs for us.

    Permalink

  4. amazingdrx Posted 12:01 am
    20 May 2006

    Why?"Why, oh why do we continue down this insane path?"
    Because it keeps the real alternative, plugin cars (plugin hybrids and pure electric), from gaining traction.  The same fellers who sit in the boardrooms and fly on the corporate jets of exxon, do the same with Ford and GM, and the big banks that monopolize the flow of capital to new technology.  
    Infernal combustion vehicles burn liquid fuel.  That will remain 90% oil even with ethanol or biodiesel.  So the price of liquid fuel will still be controlled by the same old monopoly games and oil wars.
    Powering ones own electric vehicle from a home based solar/wind system or a community power cooperative is a direct threat to this most powerful of all corporate monopolies.
    That is why taxpayer draining schemes like the hydrogen economy, fuel farming, "new, cleaner, safer" coal and nukes, and the rest of the corporatista propaganda shilling for government subsidies goes on.



    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

  5. Biodiversivist's avatar

    Biodiversivist Posted 12:10 am
    20 May 2006

    Make that 5%He noted that if you accounted for the oil used to make it, that 15% drops to 5%. None of the experts seem to disagree with these kinds of numbers. That is why biofuel in the future is expected to be cellusosic, and why even then, it is expected to be a small part of the future energy pie, although even a small percentage is a huge amount and still poses a risk to biodiversity.

    In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

    Permalink

  6. odograph Posted 12:42 am
    20 May 2006

    'expected'Well, I'm sure you are aware that 'cellusosic' is more a proposed technology than a proven one.  There are limited plants, still working on getting their costs down to something reasonable.
    5%, 15%, whatever ... none of these things bring us up to the "E85 everywhere" that is rapidly becoming the slogan of the ethanol lobby.
    We should face that, and remind them, that they can't do "E85 everywhere."  It is a misdirection.

    Permalink

  7. odograph Posted 1:11 am
    20 May 2006

    GM"GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz made similar comments in an interview in March. Speaking with CNN reporter Frank Sesno, Lutz said, 'We think running the nation on E85 makes more sense than all the hybrids in the world.'"
    http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage5201.html

    Permalink

  8. Biodiversivist's avatar

    Biodiversivist Posted 1:18 am
    20 May 2006

    Preaching to the choirMost Americans seem to go with the "there is safety in numbers" concept when it comes to deciding who is right on a given issue rather than give it any serious thought.

    In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

    Permalink

  9. odograph Posted 2:59 am
    20 May 2006

    hydrogenOn the "technology acceptance" front, every idea is tested with a claim that "it's all hype."  Some technologies survive that test better than others.  I'd say hydrogen has suffered as hard realities became more widely known.  On the other hand, with the current Prius shortage (and premium prices on used cars), I'd say the hybrid has come out of it pretty well.
    Ethanol, just because it doesn't have the fundimental technological/economic strength, will most likely(*) end up losing.
    And we'll be better off if it loses quickly.
    * - there is always the chance of a worldchanging technological breakthrough, but as hydrogen shows, sometimes we can hope for those for decades.

    Permalink

  10. Rob Posted 5:57 pm
    25 May 2006

    biodiversivist , clowning"most" "us" "them"

    and still no real world solutions.

    Killing species one at a time via appathy: biodiversivist
    Yeah for Grist comments!

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement