Talk:Ethanol fuel in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The author of this article writes: "Pimentel's study was disputed by a number of researchers, forcing him to revise his figures", however I'm not aware of any peer reviewed studies that dispute Pimentel's findings to any significant degree. If the author is aware of such studies, he/she should cite them. The USDA study, on the other hand, has been criticized by academics (see Patzek (2005) for a detailed discussion of the USDA study). For instance, among other very optimistic assumptions, the USDA study’s findings rest on an “energy credit” the researchers give to ethanol. The credit is argued to reflect the fact that amount of energy it would have taken to produce some co-products (mostly animal feed) that are sold to farmers. The problem is that if ethanol is produce in quantities large enough to actually offset gasoline use, then there would be more co-product than demanders of it, meaning we would have to use energy to dispose of it. Removing this co-product from the USDA’s accounting and the net-energy balance becomes about even.
Another shortcoming of corn ethanol is that it would require 100% of U.S. corn to displace 12% of gasoline consumption (see Miller (2006) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Study).
The fact that Brazillian experience with ethanol is never mentioned in the article reflects the general lack of scientifical neutrality related to this kind of fuel research in the US. The big companies simple dont want to stop using gasoline and will create any counter-propaganda needed to do this. And combined by the general alienation of the US citizen looks like they will manage to keep ethanol (and any other alternative fuel for that matter) out of the market.
We (Brazil) have a very sucessfull ethanol and biodiesel industry, and this is not even mentioned in the article...
Moving Information from Ethanol fuel - Work in progress Rifleman 82 06:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Efficiency of gasoline production
"That means ethanol production is 81% more energy efficient than gasoline, without factoring in the energy qualtity considerations. (Groschen [3])"
This is a mis-leading comparison. For most people, the gasoline production system is by definition 100% efficient. Either the oil stays in the ground, or it turns into some amount of gasoline. We don't much care how much of the oil is used to produce how much gasoline, although of course the more gasoline that we end up with the better. But producing gasoline is our primary use for crude oil.
On the other hand, now corn is being touted as a source of energy. If it is really used as a SOURCE of energy, great. But using corn to transform one kind of petrochemical into another is a different use!
So, if corn is to be a SOURCE of energy, ANY requirement for petrochemical input would be a Bad Thing, throwing it into dispute. If growing corn is instead being used as a giant substitute for a gasoline refinery, THEN comparing the energy efficiency would make sense. But the whole concept is absurd.
Also, corn cannot be produced directly from crude oil, but seems to use derived petrochemicals, so we don't even have the choice of using corn INSTEAD of a gasoline refinery. The losses from using corn to produce ethanol are ADDED to the losses from refining oil. 69.87.200.179 13:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
"it takes 0.74 million BTU of fossil fuels to deliver 1 million BTU of ethanol, including growing, all intermediary processes, delivery, and so on, compared to 1.23 million BTU of fossil fuels to deliver 1 million BTU of gasoline."
Is this supposed to show the advantages of ethanol?
In a perfect world, it would take 1 million BTU of fossil fuels to deliver 1 million BTU of gasoline.
In the real world, it takes an additional 0.23 million BTU of fossil fuels.
In a perfect world, it would take zero BTU of fossil fuels to deliver 1 million BTU of ethanol.
In the real world, it takes an additional 0.74 million BTU of fossil fuels. 69.87.202.5 19:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
A better statement would be "0.74 million BTU fossil fuels are consumed in the production of 1 million BTU of ethanol compared with 0.23 million BTU fossil fuels consumed to produce 1 million BTU of gasoline" Bhana 17:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Distiller's Grain is a byproduct of corn ethanol production. It is a dark yellow substance that can be fed to cattle. The debate about energy balance with respect to corn ethanol production overlooks the fact that the feed value of corn is not lost. It simply becomes better suited for cattle consumption (as opposed to hogs). Furthermore, it seems highly doubtful that one could estimate with great accuracy the amount of diesel fuel and gasoline needed to manage all of the corn acres in the country. Not only does the number of corn acres planted vary considerably from year to year, but the study implies that corn farmers do not also farm other crops: soybeans, alfalfa, etc. Inevitably, the amount of fuel used to plant at least some of these non-corn acres will be included. One must also consider the ever-consolidating and increasingly energy-efficient nature of American agriculture. One might reasonably infer that ag subsidies, in their current form, slow this process down, hampering efforts to move the energy balance in ethanol's direction.
[edit] Scam
At a gut level, large-scale agri-business corn-derived ethanol fuel in the US is an obvious scam in terms of energy/environment. We'll all know when it is for real: when all of the tractors, trucks and factories used to grow and process the corn use ethanol for fuel instead of petrochemicals... There is a good reason they are using petrochemicals to grow corn, and not using corn-derived ethanol to power the plants that transform crude oil into gasoline!
In simple, basic terms, if something is really a SOURCE of energy, you don't have to put energy IN (beyond sunlight, in this case) to get energy OUT.
People who just care about numbers are welcome to quibble over whether the net energy balance of commercial corn-derived ethanol production is slightly positive or slightly negative. But if what you care about is the environment and sustainability, agri-business corn-derived US ethanol is not a concept with a bright and hopeful future as a source of energy. Wind, solar, and conservation/efficiency are the main options currently. It would be nice if hybrid autos that could be plugged in were brought to the US so we would have more flexibility. 69.87.200.179 13:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
If the US loses their dependence on foreign oil because of Ethanol, people WILL make factories, tractors and trucks that use ethanol.
Ethanol in itself actually is a source of energy because energy can be derived from it, like an energy bar is a source of energy for the human body, regardless of the amount of energy it took to make it.
As for the current completely clean alternative fuels, that's what advancement in Ethanol study is for. As far as energy sources go, Ethanol has only received serious attention now and during the gasoline shortage a few decades ago, it's still in it's young stages, so judging it now is a bit premature.
--Dualcore Dave 05:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Future developments
Personally, I think corn ethanol currently is viable. But while the short term remanes debatable. I really have to disagree about the long term. Corn Ethanol will become a viable and energy eficant comodity in the future.
Currently it takes about 1 unit of petroleum to grow and process 1.5 units of corn ethanol but I’m pretty sure that with the
- Advent and promotion of cheaper non-petroleum fertilizers and herbicides.
- Increased corn acreage from new methods of farming.
- Farming equipment and machinery that runs on E85.
- Renewable sources of electricity for power.
- New more efficient and coast effective production processes and manufacturing methods being developed.
- The discovery of new and better Enzymes for chemical processing,
The creation of corn ethanol will become a much more energy efficant and coast effective process leaving a greatly reduced environmental footprint.
All these technologies are curently being developed and progressing, and corn ethanol will become a much more viable product, and a great boon to our economy, our environment and our society.
With all these technologies under development, in just 30 years it will take just 1 unit of petroleum to grow and process at least 5 units of corn ethanol.
Making corn ethanol in the furture a truly environmentally friendly and energy efficiant alternative to petroleum and gasoline, and turning corn ethanol into truly an energy sorce and not just an alternative means of procecing or storing oil energy.
Besides it beats being a puppet to the oil companies. --J intela 05:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
