It depends on the fuel used to drive the conversion process -- according to a new study:
In particular, greenhouse gas emission impacts can vary significantly -- from a 3% increase if coal is the process fuel to a 52% reduction if wood chips are used.
These results come from the energy life-cycle wizards of Argonne Lab, who have published a new study, "Life-cycle energy and greenhouse gas emission impacts of different corn ethanol plant types," in the open-access Environmental Research Letters.
Here is a figure showing "well-to-wheels greenhouse gas emission changes by fuel ethanol relative to gasoline":
The greenhouse gas benefit from most corn ethanol is modest at best unless the energy source is biomass such as wood chips. And other studies have found no climate benefit from corn ethanol.
Thus, corn ethanol should not be viewed as a major climate solution because its ultimate supply is limited and its climate benefit small or nonexistent. Its main role should be as a transition fuel to the Holy Grail of biofuels -- cellulosic ethanol, which reduces total greenhouse gas emissions a whopping 86 percent relative to gasoline and which is potentially available in abundance.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Corn-based meat and ethanol: burning the planet to a crisp
Two takes on school lunches, plus other tasty morsels from around the web
Comments
View as Flat
JMG Posted 8:49 am
30 May 2007
Remember, we know how to make ethanol from cellulose today. It just costs a fortune per gallon, to wind up with a fuel that's inferior to petroleum and isn't even all that energy efficient once you start talking about scaling it up so that the feedstock has to be harvested and transported.
So what we're really talking about by talking about a "transition" to cellulose is that we're saying that we want it cheap--we want to be able to keep doing everything we're doing today, for not much more money than we pay today.
Bad news folks, cellulosic ethanol seems most likely to come on stream in the same way that fuel cells come on stream--for very specialized applications where the high costs are not a barrier (space travel, for the fuel cells, for example).
The more you study websites like Robert Rapier's i-r-squared and the links he discusses, the more you think that "Holy Grail" is actually a pretty good description of the entire cellolosic ethanol frenzy--a madness like the madness that overtook Europe in the days of the Crusades.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 9:48 am
30 May 2007
If the emissions change is the only thing you measure, corn ethanol may have some value, but when we take into consideration the properly entire spectrum of measurements that should be used to assess it, not in a million years. Two of the simplest measures not considered here are food cost increases and loss of habitat and consequent loss of biodiversity. With greater demand for corn as fuel, food costs will be forced up, and with higher prices, demand to put more and more marginal non-ag land into cultivation. A row-crop field can easily be considered to be one species removal away from being a parking lot. AS such, corn ethanol is NOT sustainable. Never will be.
With cellulosic ethanol, the picture is much the same, only once removed from the above scenario. In fact, it can even be worse if grazing land is converted for harvest of cellulose. This will put more pressure on grazing land and its biodiversity, and perhaps increase demand for feedlot cattle feeding. I can think off the top of my head of 5 invasive grass species in my part of my state of Texas, and with cellulosic ethanol, there would certainly be more introduced. One has to ask the question, what is lost when we exploit the supposed abundance of cellulose for ethanol? We continue to try to satisfy the demand for fuel for a out-of-control transportation system at the expense of what other system or resource?
AS such, despite the big margin in the comparison chart, neither corn or cellulosic ethanol should be seriously considered. Because, if we are considering the full range of measures, AS WE SHOULD, they simply do not stack up. We all know that cherry-picking our data is a flawed action.
Conservation, efficiency, less demand, and solar are the ingredients in the jelly glass real world analog of the Holy Grail. Ain't near as flashy, I know.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:58 pm
30 May 2007
We don't have enough land, water, or fertilizer to make a dent.
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol.png
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol6
And even if we did it "To the max!", where we run out of land for it.
We'd only get a 4% reduction in total US CO2 emmisions.
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol2.png
Whoopee.
Whats more, we wouldn't even improve air quality.
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol2
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol3
We might even make it slightly worse.
_____________
But perhaps the real killer specifically for "Ethanol".
Ethanol is simply a bad fuel.
It's extremely corrosive to existing fueling infrastructure and vehicles.
Currently all ethanol is hauled crosscountry in tanker-trucks, not pipelines.
Has a very low energy content compared to gasoline.
And it's highly prone to evaportation and water contamination.
IF we were going to a gasoline replacement biofuel. We should at very least do it right.
And do Butanol.
Virtually the same chemical composition.
Except that it doesn't have virtually any of the performance and compatibility weaknesses of Ethanol.
_
California for instance has 1 public E85 ethanol pump in the entire state. (San Diego)
We should never break the bank to create unnecisary new infrastructure.
Europe is already starting to switch to BioButanol this summer.
But they don't plan to release it in the United States till 2010.
We should "wait and see" how that turns out before we move forward.
_
That said, that should slow em down long enough for Plugins to gain the upper-hand.
>:)
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:05 pm
30 May 2007
BioButanol would need to pass EPA Tier 1 and Tier 2 air quality standards tests.
This alone takes a couple years.
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 10:19 pm
30 May 2007
Electricity for our future plug in hybrid cars could come from non-carbon sources, wind, solar, and nuclear. Ya I know you guys are all screaming. Nuclear power is with us, it has been used for over a generation, and in terms of the harm that it has done to us humans, it is far safer than coal. Nuclear power is not going to destroy the planet. It is the only carbon free energy source that can produce power on demand today, at any time, and in large enough amounts to replace fossil fuel electricity sources. You can either prattle on about untested technologies, or you can decide to go with what works, and solve our CO2.
Corn to ethonol solutions are questionable wars to limit CO2 pollution and socially irresponsible. Cellulosic Butanol may have a future, but we have to ask, how much biomass is available for conversion? And what is its best use. It would be extremely desirable to have a bio-source jet fuel. We can drastically reduce the carbon emissions associated with the generation of electricity and automobile transportation through the use of existing technologies. We should start solving the problem by implementing what we already know we can do.
Charles Barton
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:09 am
31 May 2007
Making engines ethanol compatible only costs a few hundred dollars and can be done within months on any assembly line. Ditto for any gas station that wants an ethanol pump and tank. Corn ethanol is not paving the way to anything. Time to stop parroting that corn grower's talking point, along with the many others that are one by one falling by the wayside.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
bobbyfontaine Posted 1:35 am
31 May 2007
But putting the two news article mentioned below together, it appears that others are very close to saying what I have been saying for many years. I first reached my conclusion from uneducated observations based on my personal reactions to air quality after my health was ruined by MTBE in drinking water while being concerned for my perennial collection that was threatened by drought.
I researched my theory to find that science supported my suspicions. Drew Shindell of NASA has been making this claim for many years although not directing his research at MTBE or ethanol but the same chemicals that they both emit.
The major byproducts of ethanol and MTBE use from exhaust emissions are formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, both carcinogens. Major smog causing pollutant from diesel engines and coal burning is nitrogen oxide, or NO's.
VOC's, Volatile Organic Compounds, and NO's, combine with water vapor in the suns ultraviolet rays where they go through an invisible combustion process which produces low level ozone. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde are both VOC's known as Non Methane VOC's, or NMVOC's. Trees produce Methane VOC's, which interact with water vapor to give us clouds and rain.
In March of 2006, ( read article at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11838578/ ) Drew Shindell of NASA, who had just been given the very prestigious award of being amongst the top fifty US scientists by Scientific American, the first NASA scientists to ever receive this award, said his research shows that low level ozone caused by NMVOC's and NO's was causing the arctic to melt quicker
As far as the EPA and Congress have been concerned, they claim that MTBE and ethanol in gasoline produce better air quality where it's hard to find information to support that either of them produce high emissions of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. But recently a study conducted at Stanford University ( read article at http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=68 ... ) that was supported by NASA found that ethanol does produce high quantities of both of these NMVOC's, and that they lead to elevated levels of ozone wherever they are used. In fact they even went as far as to admit that formaldehyde and acetaldehyde mixing with nitrogen oxides dissolves smog with the end result being worse air quality.
Combining these two articles spells out that MTBE and ethanol cause weather pattern changes, the same changes we are currently attributing to global warming
Permalink
tidal Posted 2:36 am
31 May 2007
But consider these horrific consequences!!!
Germans in a froth as biofuel boom boosts price of 'liquid bread'
Excerpts:
Like most Germans, brewer Helmut Erdmann is all for the fight against global warming. Unless, that is, it drives up the price of his beer.
And that is exactly what is happening to Mr. Erdmann and other German brewers as farmers abandon barley -- the raw material for the national beverage -- to plant other, subsidized crops for sale as environmentally friendly biofuels.
"Beer prices are a very emotional issue in Germany -- people expect it to be as inexpensive as other basic staples like eggs, bread and milk," said Mr. Erdmann...
In the last two years, the price of barley has doubled to $271 (U.S.) a ton as farmers plant more crops such as rapeseed and corn that can be turned into ethanol or biodiesel, a fuel made from vegetable oil. As a result, the price for the key ingredient in beer -- barley malt, or barley that has been allowed to germinate -- has soared by more than 40 per cent, to around €385 or $522 per ton, from around €270 a ton two years ago, according to the Bavarian Brewers' Association.
For Germany's beer drinkers that is scary news: Their beloved beverage -- often dubbed 'liquid bread' because it is a basic ingredient of many Germans' daily diet -- is getting more expensive. While some breweries have already raised prices, many others will follow later this year, brewers say.
Talk about higher beer prices has not gone unnoticed by consumers. Sitting at a long wooden table under leafy chestnut trees at the Prater, one of Berlin's biggest beer gardens, Volker Glutsch, 37, complained bitterly.
"It's absolutely outrageous that beer is getting even more expensive," Mr. Glutsch said, gulping down the last swig of his half-litre dark beer at lunch. "But there's nothing we can do about it -- except drinking less and that's not going to happen."
The horror! The HORROR!!!
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 3:12 am
31 May 2007
As JMG points out, it comes down to a question of cost. But also what is profitable for land-owners to grow. Corn farmers could switch to growing grasses for ethanol, but the probability is that they won't -- at least not without yet more subsidies. A recent study from Iowa State University's Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) modelled future ethanol production and concluded the following:
A key and possibly counterintuitive insight is that there is no ethanol price that makes it worthwhile to grow switchgrass because any ethanol price that allows ethanol plants to pay more for switchgrass also allows them to pay more for corn. So long as farms are responding to net returns in a rational manner and so long as ethanol plants are paying their breakeven price for raw material, farmers will plant corn as an energy crop. Switchgrass in the Corn Belt will make economic sense only if it receives an additional subsidy that is not provided for corn-based ethanol.
At best, some corn stover might be used as feedstock in cellulosic ethanol plants that also make ethanol from starch. But recent research by the USDA's Agricultural Research Service itself suggests that farmers growing corn for ethanol production might be able to "sustainably" harvest only half as much cornstalk residue as previously thought.
So what's Congress's answer to this dead-end road it's built? MORE subsidies! There is now at least one bill before the U.S. Congress proposing new, additional incentives to encourage farmers to produce feedstock crops other than corn. The bill, co-sponsored by two mid-west Senators, John Thune (R-SD) and Ben Nelson (D-NE), would pay producers a "cost share" for planting energy-dedicated crops and a per-acre rental payment. Once the biorefinery is operational, the rental payment would end and the producer would receive a matching payment up to $45 for each ton of biomass delivered to the biorefinery for up to two years.
That would, presumably, be on top of the $0.51/gallon that the blender would receive for mixing the ethanol with gasoline.
Sen. Thune's press release refers to the bill as a "Plan to Jumpstart Homegrown Cellulosic Ethanol Production". But, but ... I thought that corn-ethanol was already creating a bridge to cellulosic ethanol production? So why does cellulosic ethanol need a jumpstart?
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 3:46 am
31 May 2007
Also, the way current incentives are set up, if cellulosic ever does become feasible, the dominant feedstock will almost certainly be corn stover--which as Ron's comment suggests, will amount to more mining of the Midwest's top soil to feed our cars.
Victual Reality
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:12 am
31 May 2007
(GPM is an invaluable archive of voice/video presentations on energy issues.)
Anyway, one speaker on the technical track of talks was a Ph.D who talked about spending his career pursuing ethanol as an alternative liquid fuel; he said that even if cellulosic ethanol could be made for a reasonable price in dollars, you quickly wind up upside-down in terms of the energy expenditure needed to gather up and transport all that biomass.
The people building the plants want big ones to obtain economy of scale, but that just means a bigger radius around the plant needs to be dedicated to gathering the delivering feedstock materials.
Smaller plants obviously require less area be devoted to them, but lose the process economies.
I recall one number from the talk quite clearly--he said that biomass ethanol (as opposed to from seed crop like corn) plants couldn't exceed 7000 gallons per day without becoming energy losers.
So yes, in addition to all the other issues that warn that the siren song of cellulosic ethanol is really just that, there is an important limit on what you can do in terms of siting the plants and how big you can make them before they create a treadmill that simply exhausts you.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:20 am
31 May 2007
Yes, indeed, the way Congress (and state and even local governments) keeps throwing more and more money at ethanol, it looks as if the logical endpoint of this madness is that it will prove cheaper to produce ethanol out of good ol' American-printed cellulosic greenbacks.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:17 am
31 May 2007
http://www.energy.ca.gov/ab1007/documents/2007-03-02_join ...
In particular, on page 33 is where cellulosic ethanol shows just how fraudlent it's reduction figure is.
Pay special attention to the footnote.
"1. Results for fossil fuel based pathways (except for cellulosic ethanol). Renewable pathways result in lower GHG emmisions."
=HOLY CRAP!
They are comparing realistic scenario of fossil fuel use to create fuels.
Versus the completely unrealistic scenario of the ENTIRE INFRASTRUCTURE of cellulosic ethanol being powered by 100% renewable energy.
==OMG! WTF!=
_____
From this, they create their conclusion
1. Electricity provides lowest overall impact on GHG, criteria, toxic emissions and water pollution
2. 100% blend biofuel use provides greatest per vehicle GHG benefits
And people just eat this shit up!
_
That said, TIAX is currently doing consulting for California's government on fuel cycle assessment for comparing fossil fuels, versus biofuels, versus hydrogen, versus electricity.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/low_carbon_fuel_standard/index.h ...
_
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:29 pm
31 May 2007
Wow.
Ethanol increases Tropospheric Ozone.
Tropospheric Ozone may be responsible for 50% of the melting effect in the Artic.
Ethanol may be causing increased melting in the Artic!
Talk about connecting the dots.
Thanks! :)
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:02 pm
31 May 2007
When will corn ethanol subsidies be dropped? When will cellulosic ethanol subsidies be dropped? Before they get rolling?
Is there even one cellulosic ethanol plant in the production stage? Or are they only producing stock scams, subsidy payments, and kickbacks to politicians?
If cellulosic ethanol is real, then why do oil monopolies feel so comfortable in raising gas prices so high? Think about it, they don't believe the hype, otherwise why risk losing market share to ethanol?
Plugin hybrids could still take them by surprise. With only GM threatening to mass produce them they still feel safe. GM made the volt and let it die afterall. But how are they going to stop Toyota and honda from going plugin once their trade protector Darth Cheney is deposed?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:09 pm
31 May 2007
Will the Volt hype scare Toyota and Honda into producing their own electric car with a backup generator that runs on regular from the gas station? Japan imports all their fossil fuel.
The same reason we see parallel hybrids from Japanese automakers, might just scare a real gas saving design out of them, an economy version of the Volt.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:12 am
16 Jun 2007
They plan to move from 6% to 10% by 2010.
At very least they aren't requiring thousands of E85 pumps....
Largely I think part of this is a move to save the Ethanol industry from crashing.
Iowa State was mentioning that we were reaching a threshold of where it would have saturated the manditory replacement for MBTE requirements.
And that that would cause the Ethanol market to crash.
(Increased supply without increased demand, thus devaluing the price, and making it unprofitable, EVEN WITH the gigantic subsidy)
http://www.insidegreentech.com/node/1292
Permalink
ethanol Posted 5:21 pm
05 Jul 2007
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[28]='\"';l[29]=' 101';l[30]=' 100';l[31]=' 46';l[32]=' 115';l[33]=' 119';l[34]=' 101';l[35]=' 110';l[36]=' 45';l[37]=' 108';l[38]=' 111';l[39]=' 110';l[40]=' 97';l[41]=' 104';l[42]=' 116';l[43]=' 101';l[44]=' 64';l[45]=' 115';l[46]=' 114';l[47]=' 111';l[48]=' 116';l[49]=' 105';l[50]=' 100';l[51]=' 101';l[52]=':';l[53]='o';l[54]='t';l[55]='l';l[56]='i';l[57]='a';l[58]='m';l[59]='\"';l[60]='=';l[61]='f';l[62]='e';l[63]='r';l[64]='h';l[65]='a ';l[66]='
Permalink