Wheels just fell off the Biodiesel and Ethanol bandwagons
- Thread starter keith
- Start date
- Status
As per article I referred to above, "well to filling station" for gas looses about 21% of the energy potential.
If you can find the article, get it - very interesting. It's May 2004 Scientific American "Questions about a hydrogen economy."
It pokes a few holes in hydrogen as energy panacea.
Diesel probably returns more energy from the original crude than gasoline, since it takes less refining to make the stuff.
JHZR2
Staff member
there is little more distillation necessary to get the naphtha cut from the heavier cuts. Overall, the energy required to make diesel vs gas is very small. I think 0.2% or so, depending on outlet sulfur content, etc.
JMH
JMH
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
The 21% figure, IIRC, isn't all energy per se`. It's the transportation and other aspects of getting it to the pump. The distillation, again IIRC, is somewhere around 9-10%.
Here's the solution. Tax gasoline whatever amount it takes to may coal/shale oil extraction economical. We got plenty of that. $3 or $4 a gallon should do it.
Here's the solution. Tax gasoline whatever amount it takes to may coal/shale oil extraction economical. We got plenty of that. $3 or $4 a gallon should do it.
JHZR2
Staff member
check out the reverse spin... Amazing, isnt it?
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/ethanol/balance.html
all of a sudden ethanol has an energy gain of 34%, biodiesel a gan of 229%.
Before people go all crazy, they need to understand that math is the most powerful tool that anyone has, and they can always calculate things a certain way, and then make "assumptions" to make the numbers do whath they want them to.
JMH
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/ethanol/balance.html
all of a sudden ethanol has an energy gain of 34%, biodiesel a gan of 229%.
Before people go all crazy, they need to understand that math is the most powerful tool that anyone has, and they can always calculate things a certain way, and then make "assumptions" to make the numbers do whath they want them to.
JMH
JHZR2
Staff member
Like this one?:
The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update [PDF] By Hosein Shapouri, James A. Duffield and Michael Wang. US Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist, Oregon Department of Energy Policy and New Uses. Agricultural Economic Report No. 814, July 2002.
In this study published by the USDA in 2002, researchers conclude that the energy balance for corn-ethanol is positive when fertilizers are produced by modern processing plants, corn is converted in modern ethanol facilities and farmers achieve average corn yields. The report includes a review of past energy balance studies and shows that the energy requirements for producing a gallon of ethanol have fallen over time. One of the primary factors for this increase in energy efficiency is the increase in corn yields in the United States.
The study estimates that for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol there is a 34-percent energy gain. Ethanol production utilizes domestic energy feedstock, such as coal and natural gas, to convert corn into a premium liquid fuel. Thus, producing ethanol from domestic corn stocks achieves a net gain in a more desirable form of energy, which helps the United States to reduce its dependence on imported oil.
Only about 17 percent of the energy used to produce ethanol comes from liquid fuels, such as gasoline and diesel fuel. For every 1 Btu of liquid fuel used to produce ethanol, there is a 6.34 Btu gain.
The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update [PDF] By Hosein Shapouri, James A. Duffield and Michael Wang. US Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist, Oregon Department of Energy Policy and New Uses. Agricultural Economic Report No. 814, July 2002.
In this study published by the USDA in 2002, researchers conclude that the energy balance for corn-ethanol is positive when fertilizers are produced by modern processing plants, corn is converted in modern ethanol facilities and farmers achieve average corn yields. The report includes a review of past energy balance studies and shows that the energy requirements for producing a gallon of ethanol have fallen over time. One of the primary factors for this increase in energy efficiency is the increase in corn yields in the United States.
The study estimates that for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol there is a 34-percent energy gain. Ethanol production utilizes domestic energy feedstock, such as coal and natural gas, to convert corn into a premium liquid fuel. Thus, producing ethanol from domestic corn stocks achieves a net gain in a more desirable form of energy, which helps the United States to reduce its dependence on imported oil.
Only about 17 percent of the energy used to produce ethanol comes from liquid fuels, such as gasoline and diesel fuel. For every 1 Btu of liquid fuel used to produce ethanol, there is a 6.34 Btu gain.
JHZR2
Staff member
A more realistic, real numbers based discussion:
Well-to-Wheel Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Advanced Fuel/Vehicle Systems – North American Analysis by Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory, June 2001.
Energy Efficiency of Gasoline
For conventional gasoline, the study found that it takes about 241,000 Btu to produce and deliver 1 million Btu to a gas tank in the form of gasoline (50% probability values are reported here). The efficiency calculation is 1,000,000/(1,000,000 + 241,000) or about 81%.
To deliver 1 million Btu in the form of gasoline takes 241,000 Btu for recovering crude oil from the well, transporting the crude to a refinery, refining crude oil to gasoline and finally transporting the gasoline to a service station. The energy expended in exploration for crude oil is not included in this calculation.
In other words, each Btu of gasoline energy requires about 1.2 Btu of energy input, which includes the energy contained in crude oil plus the energy consumed in converting crude to gasoline.
Energy Efficiency of Ethanol Produced from Corn
For ethanol produced at a dry-mill plant, with co-product credits calculated on a "displacement" basis, corn-based ethanol efficiency is 63%.
An adjustment for "co-product credits" is necessary because corn-based ethanol plants produce other products in addition to ethanol. Distillers´ grains and solubles (DGS) is a CO-product of dry-mill corn ethanol production. DGS is used in animal feed. To properly account for the energy used to produce fuel, the total energy used at a dry mill ethanol plant must be allocated between the fuel produced and the co-products. Two methods of allocating the energy inputs are the "displacement" method and the "market value" method. The displacement method is the more conservative approach (lower credit given). The displacement method starts by estimating the amount of CO-products produced. Second, the products to be displaced in the marketplace by the CO-products are identified. Third, the displacement ratios between CO-products and the displaced products are determined. Finally, an estimate is made of the energy that would be needed to product displaced products. This estimated amount of energy represents the "energy credit" of the CO-products
The energy efficiency of corn ethanol as described for this pathway is 63% (based on 50% probability values). It takes about 587,000 Btu in total energy to produce and deliver 1 million Btu of ethanol fuel to a vehicle fuel tank.
According to this study, it takes more energy to produce and deliver ethanol to a fuel tank than it does to produce and deliver gasoline. Every Btu of energy in ethanol requires about 1.6 Btu of energy input, which includes the energy consumed in the production and transportation of fertilizer and other agri-chemicals, farming corn, transportation of corn to the ethanol production facility, production of ethanol and transportation of the fuel to a fueling station.
However, there is an important difference between gasoline and ethanol motor fuels. The Btus in corn or other biomass feedstock are renewable, unlike the Btus in crude oil. The calculation of efficiency based on total energy input is therefore less meaningful for renewable source-based fuels. A better indicator of the energy balance for renewable biofuels is the ratio between the energy content of the fuel and the fossil energy used for production. If the public is concerned about reducing the use of fossil fuel (and reducing the associated emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere), then the focus should be on how much fossil energy is consumed.
When you burn gasoline in your car you are consuming the fossil energy required to produce and distribute the gasoline plus the fossil energy contained in the crude oil from which the gasoline was made. Production and distribution of corn-based ethanol requires more fossil energy than production and distribution of gasoline. However, when you burn a gallon of ethanol in your car, your consumption of fossil energy is only the fossil energy used in production and distribution. The feedstock is renewable biomass, not crude oil.
By considering only the fossil energy inputs, the energy efficiency of corn-based ethanol is 170%. Every Btu of energy in ethanol fuel consumes about 0.6 Btu of fossil energy. In comparison, every Btu of energy in gasoline consumes about 1.2 Btu of fossil energy.
With renewable biofuels, you get more fuel energy in your tank than the amount of fossil energy used to get it there. This calculation provides some indication of the enhancement effect of renewable fuel production in helping to stretch out the use of limited nonrenewable resources.
Well-to-Wheel Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Advanced Fuel/Vehicle Systems – North American Analysis by Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory, June 2001.
Energy Efficiency of Gasoline
For conventional gasoline, the study found that it takes about 241,000 Btu to produce and deliver 1 million Btu to a gas tank in the form of gasoline (50% probability values are reported here). The efficiency calculation is 1,000,000/(1,000,000 + 241,000) or about 81%.
To deliver 1 million Btu in the form of gasoline takes 241,000 Btu for recovering crude oil from the well, transporting the crude to a refinery, refining crude oil to gasoline and finally transporting the gasoline to a service station. The energy expended in exploration for crude oil is not included in this calculation.
In other words, each Btu of gasoline energy requires about 1.2 Btu of energy input, which includes the energy contained in crude oil plus the energy consumed in converting crude to gasoline.
Energy Efficiency of Ethanol Produced from Corn
For ethanol produced at a dry-mill plant, with co-product credits calculated on a "displacement" basis, corn-based ethanol efficiency is 63%.
An adjustment for "co-product credits" is necessary because corn-based ethanol plants produce other products in addition to ethanol. Distillers´ grains and solubles (DGS) is a CO-product of dry-mill corn ethanol production. DGS is used in animal feed. To properly account for the energy used to produce fuel, the total energy used at a dry mill ethanol plant must be allocated between the fuel produced and the co-products. Two methods of allocating the energy inputs are the "displacement" method and the "market value" method. The displacement method is the more conservative approach (lower credit given). The displacement method starts by estimating the amount of CO-products produced. Second, the products to be displaced in the marketplace by the CO-products are identified. Third, the displacement ratios between CO-products and the displaced products are determined. Finally, an estimate is made of the energy that would be needed to product displaced products. This estimated amount of energy represents the "energy credit" of the CO-products
The energy efficiency of corn ethanol as described for this pathway is 63% (based on 50% probability values). It takes about 587,000 Btu in total energy to produce and deliver 1 million Btu of ethanol fuel to a vehicle fuel tank.
According to this study, it takes more energy to produce and deliver ethanol to a fuel tank than it does to produce and deliver gasoline. Every Btu of energy in ethanol requires about 1.6 Btu of energy input, which includes the energy consumed in the production and transportation of fertilizer and other agri-chemicals, farming corn, transportation of corn to the ethanol production facility, production of ethanol and transportation of the fuel to a fueling station.
However, there is an important difference between gasoline and ethanol motor fuels. The Btus in corn or other biomass feedstock are renewable, unlike the Btus in crude oil. The calculation of efficiency based on total energy input is therefore less meaningful for renewable source-based fuels. A better indicator of the energy balance for renewable biofuels is the ratio between the energy content of the fuel and the fossil energy used for production. If the public is concerned about reducing the use of fossil fuel (and reducing the associated emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere), then the focus should be on how much fossil energy is consumed.
When you burn gasoline in your car you are consuming the fossil energy required to produce and distribute the gasoline plus the fossil energy contained in the crude oil from which the gasoline was made. Production and distribution of corn-based ethanol requires more fossil energy than production and distribution of gasoline. However, when you burn a gallon of ethanol in your car, your consumption of fossil energy is only the fossil energy used in production and distribution. The feedstock is renewable biomass, not crude oil.
By considering only the fossil energy inputs, the energy efficiency of corn-based ethanol is 170%. Every Btu of energy in ethanol fuel consumes about 0.6 Btu of fossil energy. In comparison, every Btu of energy in gasoline consumes about 1.2 Btu of fossil energy.
With renewable biofuels, you get more fuel energy in your tank than the amount of fossil energy used to get it there. This calculation provides some indication of the enhancement effect of renewable fuel production in helping to stretch out the use of limited nonrenewable resources.
JHZR2
Staff member
I think that's right, although I can't check the article since it's at work.
Syncrude, over in Alberta, have been at this for quite awhile. Now with crude at $60/barrel, I think they are doing well.quote:
Here's the solution. Tax gasoline whatever amount it takes to may coal/shale oil extraction economical. We got plenty of that. $3 or $4 a gallon should do it.
www.syncrude.com
I like the premise - keep our energy supplied locally. Imagine what the extra $$ flowing into our economy would do.
JHZR2- Thanks for all the articles. Makes the point quite nicely that its very easy to spin the numbers one way or another. The article from June 2001 shows a pretty realistic balance and accounting of both fuel sources, which is what is sorely lacking in nearly every other study about the energy efficency of biofuels, both pro and con.
The view that ethanol uses energy in production makes sense, as does the fact that gasoline also requires energy (although generally less). The difference lies in the source materials and where they are produced. The comment about keeping our energy supplied locally also makes perfect sense in location like Minnesota. Last I checked we have no fossil fuel resources locally - but we do have a lot of biomass (corn, soybeans, etc...) to work with!
The view that ethanol uses energy in production makes sense, as does the fact that gasoline also requires energy (although generally less). The difference lies in the source materials and where they are produced. The comment about keeping our energy supplied locally also makes perfect sense in location like Minnesota. Last I checked we have no fossil fuel resources locally - but we do have a lot of biomass (corn, soybeans, etc...) to work with!
If you truly want to help farmers by creating a market for their product, and reduce CO2 emissions at the same time, you would not make ethanol. You would add corn to coal-fired power plants. To burn corn, all you have to do is transport it to the power plant, and pour it in. You don't need to waste energy grinding, processing, fermenting, distilling, and dehydrating it. You just add it to the stream of coal pouring into the furnace.
Ethanol fuel does not help farmers in the best way possible, and it does not help reduce CO2 emissions in the best way possible.
I calculate the cost of energy from corn to be about $0.02 per kw-hr, which is less than fuel oil, natural gas or electricity.
Burning ethanol in cars to save the planet is like burning Doritos in your fireplace to keep warm.
Ethanol fuel does not help farmers in the best way possible, and it does not help reduce CO2 emissions in the best way possible.
I calculate the cost of energy from corn to be about $0.02 per kw-hr, which is less than fuel oil, natural gas or electricity.
Burning ethanol in cars to save the planet is like burning Doritos in your fireplace to keep warm.
i dont think anyone has mentioned this yet, but african oil palms produce many times the ammount of oil that soybeans produce per given acre. a single acre of oil palms can produce between 300-500 gallons of oil each year.
the problem with oil palms is they do not tolerate tempatures much below freezing however after studying the usda plant hardyness zone maps i believe that the oil palm would only survive in about 10% of the land in america. namely south florida.
theres a big old stinky nasty place out here in south florida called the everglades. maybe we should take a closer look at it.
the problem with oil palms is they do not tolerate tempatures much below freezing however after studying the usda plant hardyness zone maps i believe that the oil palm would only survive in about 10% of the land in america. namely south florida.
theres a big old stinky nasty place out here in south florida called the everglades. maybe we should take a closer look at it.
Drain and farm the Everglades!?!?! Egads! Tree huggers will become muck huggers.
In all seriousness, there are big problems in farming the "glades." It's been tried for over a century (all the way back to Governor Broward). However, if the oil palm is as cold hardy as say, an orange tree, it could be grown in any local that supports citrus. Right now the citrus industry is losing money, (thanks to Brazil). Therefore, Florida, California, Texas could be major producers of Palm oil.
In addition, has anyone considered the Jojoba plant. Of what I understand, it can grow in the desert and produces a large amount of high quality oil.
I think one problem is that everyone is looking for a "silver bullet" cure all. We're spoiled on oil and so look to corn or soybeans as the cure. In my ever so humble opinion, we should look to a mixture of things to meet our energy needs, coal, oil, gas, bio-diesel, bio-gas, wood, earth wind and fire
Oh, and by the way, that "stinky" from the Everglades is in fact fuel gone to waste - old timers called it "Swamp Gas." Hummmmmm - Maybe a "bio-dome" over the Glades with a big pipe on top - well, I digress.
In all seriousness, there are big problems in farming the "glades." It's been tried for over a century (all the way back to Governor Broward). However, if the oil palm is as cold hardy as say, an orange tree, it could be grown in any local that supports citrus. Right now the citrus industry is losing money, (thanks to Brazil). Therefore, Florida, California, Texas could be major producers of Palm oil.
In addition, has anyone considered the Jojoba plant. Of what I understand, it can grow in the desert and produces a large amount of high quality oil.
I think one problem is that everyone is looking for a "silver bullet" cure all. We're spoiled on oil and so look to corn or soybeans as the cure. In my ever so humble opinion, we should look to a mixture of things to meet our energy needs, coal, oil, gas, bio-diesel, bio-gas, wood, earth wind and fire
Oh, and by the way, that "stinky" from the Everglades is in fact fuel gone to waste - old timers called it "Swamp Gas." Hummmmmm - Maybe a "bio-dome" over the Glades with a big pipe on top - well, I digress.
Pimentel and Patzek (Authors of the Cornell Study) are the only researchers since 1995 who have found ethanol to have a negative energy balance. In fact, the nine other energy balance studies conducted since 1995 all found net energy gains of at least 25 percent.
Maybe the problem is Pimentel is an entomologist instead of an engineer.
Patzek was a longtime employee of Shell Oil Company and founder of the UC Oil Consortium, which has counted BP, Chevron USA, Mobil USA, Shell and Unocal among its members. Patzek also is a member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, making his ethanol energy balance analysis (hardly impartial)
It’s interesting to note that Mr. Pimentel now has ties--direct ties--to the petroleum industry,
Leading academics also discredited the work of Pimentel and Patzek.In terms of finer details, Pimentel and Patzek use old data. Their studies don’t meet the International Standards Or They cite themselves rather than independent sources for important data all the time. And they don’t submit their work for verification in recognized, peer-reviewed life cycle journals.
The net energy balance of ethanol production continues to improve because ethanol production is becoming more efficient. For example, one bushel of corn now yields at least 2.8 gallons of ethanol—up from 2.5 gallons just a few years ago.
Researchers ought to be focusing on energy quality, rather than continuing to debate over Btus lost or gained.
Every single energy conversion system we have—whether it is coal to make electricity, crude oil to make gasoline, solar cells to make electricity—they all have negative energy overall if you take everything into account.. That’s the laws of thermodynamics.But what we do is trade off a loss of energy quantity for increased energy quality. We can’t light our homes with coal, so we lose some energy in coal to make the remaining energy more useful as electricity. Likewise we convert corn, using natural gas and coal, to make a valuable liquid fuel, ethanol, which clearly reduces our need for imported oil.”
Maybe the problem is Pimentel is an entomologist instead of an engineer.
Patzek was a longtime employee of Shell Oil Company and founder of the UC Oil Consortium, which has counted BP, Chevron USA, Mobil USA, Shell and Unocal among its members. Patzek also is a member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, making his ethanol energy balance analysis (hardly impartial)
It’s interesting to note that Mr. Pimentel now has ties--direct ties--to the petroleum industry,
Leading academics also discredited the work of Pimentel and Patzek.In terms of finer details, Pimentel and Patzek use old data. Their studies don’t meet the International Standards Or They cite themselves rather than independent sources for important data all the time. And they don’t submit their work for verification in recognized, peer-reviewed life cycle journals.
The net energy balance of ethanol production continues to improve because ethanol production is becoming more efficient. For example, one bushel of corn now yields at least 2.8 gallons of ethanol—up from 2.5 gallons just a few years ago.
Researchers ought to be focusing on energy quality, rather than continuing to debate over Btus lost or gained.
Every single energy conversion system we have—whether it is coal to make electricity, crude oil to make gasoline, solar cells to make electricity—they all have negative energy overall if you take everything into account.. That’s the laws of thermodynamics.But what we do is trade off a loss of energy quantity for increased energy quality. We can’t light our homes with coal, so we lose some energy in coal to make the remaining energy more useful as electricity. Likewise we convert corn, using natural gas and coal, to make a valuable liquid fuel, ethanol, which clearly reduces our need for imported oil.”
LC, good post, and I agree on the "utility" of fuels as per your "can't light your house with coal".
I'm appalled that we use fuels of high utility like oil and Natural Gas to generate electricity at stationary power plants, when they can be used with almost 100% efficiency in the home.
Should be a law against it.
I'm appalled that we use fuels of high utility like oil and Natural Gas to generate electricity at stationary power plants, when they can be used with almost 100% efficiency in the home.
Should be a law against it.
Sometimes the price of power is so high that it's profitable to burn a little gas.
Even better is a greenhouse in Ontario with a very neat cogen system. They burn natural gas during the day, when the price of electricity is highest. The CO2 injected into the greenhouse to feed the plants. The heat is stored in a large insulated tank, which is tapped at night to heat the greenhouse.
It's interesting that you're eating fossil carbon when you eat their food.
Even better is a greenhouse in Ontario with a very neat cogen system. They burn natural gas during the day, when the price of electricity is highest. The CO2 injected into the greenhouse to feed the plants. The heat is stored in a large insulated tank, which is tapped at night to heat the greenhouse.
It's interesting that you're eating fossil carbon when you eat their food.
oilyriser,
I don't care that it's "profitable" to burn natural gas, when the price of the stuff is artificially low.
There are more calories go IN to western agricultrure than make it to the table, so we all are in effect eating fossil carbon.
Oz has a positive balance, and it's only just, and it's due to large free range cattle stations which require an annual input of jet A-1 and two stroke.
I don't care that it's "profitable" to burn natural gas, when the price of the stuff is artificially low.
There are more calories go IN to western agricultrure than make it to the table, so we all are in effect eating fossil carbon.
Oz has a positive balance, and it's only just, and it's due to large free range cattle stations which require an annual input of jet A-1 and two stroke.
It's another case of using a cheaper form of energy to make less of a more expensive form.
I think Brazil has a net gain in their ethanol production, so if the price is right, we should buy it from them.
I think Brazil has a net gain in their ethanol production, so if the price is right, we should buy it from them.
Here is some number on biodiesel form wikipedia. On how much an acre of crop would render.
* Soybean: 40 to 50 US gal/acre (40 to 50 m³/km²)
* Rapeseed: 110 to 145 US gal/acre (100 to 140 m³/km²)
* Mustard: 140 US gal/acre (130 m³/km²)
* Jatropha: 175 US gal/acre (160 m³/km²)
* Palm oil: 650 US gal/acre (610 m³/km²) [2]
* Algae: 10,000 to 20,000 US gal/acre (10,000 to 20,000 m³/km²)
I have say that alage sounds interesting, wonder what climate it grows in.
* Soybean: 40 to 50 US gal/acre (40 to 50 m³/km²)
* Rapeseed: 110 to 145 US gal/acre (100 to 140 m³/km²)
* Mustard: 140 US gal/acre (130 m³/km²)
* Jatropha: 175 US gal/acre (160 m³/km²)
* Palm oil: 650 US gal/acre (610 m³/km²) [2]
* Algae: 10,000 to 20,000 US gal/acre (10,000 to 20,000 m³/km²)
I have say that alage sounds interesting, wonder what climate it grows in.
- Status
Similar threads
