Going Yellow Going Yellow: Energy Department says ethanol is a an energy winner

Autoweek ^

[ElTiante]

WASHINGTON -- Along with automakers, the Bush administration wants to end debate over whether ethanol made from corn yields more energy than does the fuel used to produce it.

The Energy Department's verdict: It does.

A new department brochure says that 740,000 British thermal units of fossil energy are consumed to make and deliver ethanol that contains 1 million Btu of energy. The latest version of the brochure, issued last month, is part of a broad department defense of ethanol. . . . Critic unbowed

"Every argument they make is bogus," says Tad Patzek, one of the leading critics of ethanol, of the administration's defense. Patzek, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, vows to keep fighting ethanol.

[ElTiante]

I have a feeling that if one commissioned ten different studies of this topic you'd get ten different answers.

[jcadam]

If we weren't burning hydrocarbons were they weren't necessary (fixed power plants) this would be a non-issue. Bring on the nuclear power, baby

[P-40]

says Tad Patzek, one of the leading critics of ethanol

You should read some of the other stuff the guy is critical of...

[Neoliberalnot]

A big issue here is the feed value of the ethanol bi-products produced from corn. The idiots lacking a clue about agribusiness always forget the high-protein feed product left after the ethanol is extracted.

[Londo Molari]

We should make some floating cornfields and put them off the coast of Massachusetts

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

committing jillions of US acreage to corn for ethanol production would render us almost completely dependent on foreign grown fruit and vegetables.

[petro45acp]

"If we weren't burning hydrocarbons were they weren't necessary (fixed power plants) this would be a non-issue. Bring on the nuclear power, baby"

Here HERE!!!

and get solar panel technology unscrewed!
And bring on the wind farms!
Thermaldpolymerization for all!

"...as far as power is concerned, it's raining soup. We just need bigger spoons..."

Paraphrase: Marjorie "Friday" or "kettle belly" Baldwin, "FRIDAY" by R A Heinlein.

[cpdiii]

The answer to the question is quite simple. Let the FREE MARKET DECIDE. If ethanol can be produced with a net gain in energy and compete without a subsidy it will happen. If it can not, it will not happen.

This is not rocket science!

[SolidSupplySide]

A new department brochure says that 740,000 British thermal units of fossil energy are consumed to make and deliver ethanol that contains 1 million Btu of energy.

That's not a lot of value-added. And consider that there are more resources expended to create ethanol than just fossil fuels. There is a whole lot of labor expended to create ethanol. Is it really the best and highest use of that labor to acrete 260,000 BTUs per million?

There are yet other costs of producing ethanol. How much does it affect the economy by raising corn prices? That cost should clearly be considered, too.

The economist in me doesn't like this analysis at all.

[July 4th]

You'll wonder where the yellow went when you fill your car with ethanol. Ethanol. Ethanol.

[CPT Clay]

Here we go again

[July 4th]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgw4odmEZGs

[FastCoyote]

"I have a feeling that if one commissioned ten different studies of this topic you'd get ten different answers."

And that is a bad sign.

[Lekker 1]

you'd get ten different answers

At LEAST ten.

[Moonman62]

That's not a lot of value-added. And consider that there are more resources expended to create ethanol than just fossil fuels. There is a whole lot of labor expended to create ethanol. Is it really the best and highest use of that labor to acrete 260,000 BTUs per million?

What about all the resources used to produce gasoline? Only about 20% of oil pumps itself out of the ground. And then it has to be cooked or refined. I also hear petroleum is still subsidized by the government.

[JamesP81]

The best long term solution might be to develop compact enough batteries to make electric cars viable (from what I understand, electrics also get good acceleration, so they're probably fun to drive to) and convert our power production to nuclear. Problems solved.

[taxcontrol]

Yep, maybe even 12 or 13 different answers.

[Lekker 1]

740,000 British thermal units of fossil energy are consumed to make and deliver ethanol that contains 1 million Btu of energy

Here we go again. It takes 740,000 Btus of fossil energy to generate 250,000 Btus of ELECTRICITY, yet electricity remains vastly popular. Let's not focus on the red herrings.

[ChessExpert]

The answer to the question is quite simple. Let the FREE MARKET DECIDE. If ethanol can be produced with a net gain in energy and compete without a subsidy it will happen. If it can not, it will not happen.

Absolutely right.

The only problem may be the current extent of government interference in different markets. Something crazy might look sensible, if there are enough government induced distortions in place. This only emphasizes the point that government should get out of agricultural and other markets. I suspect the push for ethanol is for Archer Daniels Midland, corn farmers, and others. In other words, more pork.

[ElTiante]

Well at present the energy density of batteries is woefully low. while there have been some advances, it still a LONG way from the energy/weight ratio of gasoline.