This is from the link above, the source of the report.
Posted on 03/04/2007 8:01:09 AM PST by Uncle Miltie
E85 is a loser for reduced miles per gallon, as reported in published articles in recent magazines. Stories published in various magazines, e.g., Consumer Reports, CARandDRIVER, Bioscience, Scientific American, American Scientist and Science in 2005 and 2006 question the scientific and economic validity of ethanol (a mixture of gasoline and alcohol) made from corn grain or other fermentable carbohydrates (CHO).
Alcohol made from fermented cellosic material (wood from certain trees, plant materials from plants such as switchgrass or other grasses, etc. may be more feasible. However, cellosic materials are composed of complex CHOs which must be modified to more simple, fermentable CHOs to produce alcohol, and the needed economic procedures are not yet developed.
A significant fact is that gasoline from petroleum has 115,400 British Thermal Units per gallon whereas alcohol (ethanol) has only 75,670 BTUs per gallon, or, alcohol has only .66 the energy of gasoline.
Further, the energy input to produce corn, such as machinery, fertilizer, seed, etc., and the total process of conversion of corn grain to alcohol and by-products requires more energy than is produced in the ethanol, according to researchers at Cornell University (2007 publication) and others. However, others reported a 1.34 gain in energy from the ethanol from the corn when he included the energy of byproducts.
Two publications, Consumer Reports and CARandDRIVER in recent road tests or on an oval track, in 2006 trials found that E85 (gasoline mixed with 85 percent alcohol) has approximately 30 percent less mileage as compared to 87 octane gasoline. At prices of gasoline and E85 in August, 2006, the fuel costs to travel 400 miles (road) with E85 ($3.99) would have exceeded gasoline ($2.49), or a Tahoe Chevrolet went 400 miles on a tankful of gasoline versus the Tahoe going only 290 miles on a tankful of E85.
The author of the story in CARandDRIVER quoted that the Environmental Protection Agency has reported 28 percent reduction in mileage for E85 as compared to gasoline. E85 provided only 0.67 the mileage of gasoline.
Ethanol from corn has required large federal and state subsidies, a 51c/gallon federal subsidy of alcohol blended with gasoline, plus state subsidies and tax incentives to grow to its present 107 ethanol plants producing 5.1 billion gallons of alcohol in 2006, and growing.
The price of corn has increased
50 percent or more in six to nine months benefiting corn growers. The higher price of corn is hurting livestock producers (beef cattle, swine, poultry, etc.) because the price of feeder cattle has decreased significantly and the price of corn for feed has increased 50 percent in six months.
A potentially more efficient producer of liquid fuel energy is thought to be the “cellulosic” system, or production of alcohol from complex CHOs such as wood chips, plant material from corn stalks, and perennial grasses such as switchgrass. However, a basic problem is the development of enzyme(s) to convert complex CHOs to fermentable CHOs.
Economic transportation of such bulky materials also is a problem. Another problem is that the cellulosic plants will use about 500 to 1,000 gallons of water per minute or 1,440,000 gallons per 24 hours with plants closely spaced due to bulk of cellulosic material. (Says Dr. Thomas Robb, in Farm & Ranch Guide, Jan. 5)
The production and use of biodiesel (diesel from petroleum to which are added modified vegetable oils or waste fats) also have economic problems. Canola oil highly publicized for use now has a higher cost per pound or gallon than diesel fuel from petroleum, $3/gallon wholesale versus $2.47/gallon retail. Canola oil is popular for use in cooking or in foods.
Soybean oil has a lower price than canola oil but now has increased to 28.5c/lb. about 10 percent higher than the maximum, 25c/lb. at which using soybean oil in biodiesel will be economic.
The potential users of biofuels are urged to become better informed about their practical and economic feasibility. Stories in the popular press are mostly very favorable to “replaceable, sustainable biofuels” as are corn growers, speculators and most politicians. Other publications are skeptical to negative about the practical and economic feasibility of biofuels now produced from corn grain and other plant sources.
Carter and Nalewaja are professors emeritus in plant science at North Dakota State University.
Both had distinguished careers in teaching and research – Carter in flaxseed for food and fuel, Nalewaja in development of weed control practices. E-mail ImySm@aol.com
This is from the link above, the source of the report.
Ethanol looks pretty bad doesn't it? Nuclear and coal are our best solutions. That or seizing the oil fields of anyone who declares war on us : )
I wish more people would realize that includes environmentalists that seize our access to our own oil.
The Escalante Coal field in Utah that Clinton turned into a National Monument has some of the cleanest coal in the world. It is now permanently off limits.
The ecopalyptics want us to revert to the stone age, except for themselves of course.
Nope. Doesn't say that. Look back about eight slides from the one you posted for the real story.
Says clearly that for 1MM BTU of gasoline, you have to spend 1.23MM BTU of energy, and for 1MM BTU of ethanol, you have to spend 0.74MM BTU of energy.
Besides, YOU were the one who said that the Argonne report was "invalid".
It shows petroleum going in as the product to be processed as well as the energy inputs such as diesel along the way. It also shows there are other petroleum products produced for these inputs. Diesel and others also have BTU content and we get energy from them as well. To ignore them is dishonest.
Do you think slide 12 is a mistake? It is very clear the total energy needed for gasoline is mostly comprised of the fuel itself.
How about slide 6? I know this takes a little math but I can help you there. You have to take the inverse of 0.81 to get the total fuel input. If you claim that does not include the fuel itself do the same with the coal and try to explain that one the same way. If so, we will go back to the charts for total energy used in the US and you can explain where all that energy comes from.
Besides, YOU were the one who said
It is not about me. It is about the data. I still believe the study is slanted pro-ethanol and uses worst-case data for petroleum. Ignoring the energy contents of the other products produced is clearly an example of that. But it is at least closer to the realm of possibility than the way you are twisting the claim into something it does not say.
He must have gone to a public school. You'll have to explain what inverse means.
California does not elect North Dakota's politicians.
Be nice. I went to public school too.
How can that be? You're good at math.
I guess I try to excuse people's idiocy by blaming it on their school. Sometimes, they're just idiots.
they just pay for them
Riiight. Leading Montanans around by the nose is that easy?
You HAVE to take the context of that slide with the one immediately previous, which shows energy CONSUMED to make the product (in this case, ethanol).
"Do you think slide 12 is a mistake? It is very clear the total energy needed for gasoline is mostly comprised of the fuel itself."
No, I think it is ambiguous, and can be interpreted either your way or my way. It's a piss-poor graphic. Figure 2 in the Science article is much clearer. It SPECIFICALLY says energy USED to make the product (either ethanol or gasoline). And if you add up the inputs, you get 1.19 Megajoules of energy INPUTS to make 1 Megajoule of gasoline. Which is VERY close to the 1.23 MM BTU per 1MM BTU gasoline ratio that Wang calculated. According to your interpretation, Wang should have stated that value as 0.23MM BTU per 1 MM BTU of gasoline to have the same context as in the slide that shows 0.74 MM BTU energy USED per 1 MM BTU of ethanol. This is about energy USED to make product, not an "energy balance" calculation.
"Ignoring the energy contents of the other products produced is clearly an example of that. But it is at least closer to the realm of possibility than the way you are twisting the claim into something it does not say."
Nope. YOU are the one twisting things. I "do" know how energy intense petroleum refining is. The probability of spending 0.23 MM BTU of energy to make 1MM BTU of gasoline is zero. And "ignoring the energy contents of the other products" is exactly right IF you are discussing the energy USED to make the gasoline. One is talking about energy usage, and the other it talking about the overall economics . This is precisely the same as not discussing the value of the "distillers grain" byproduct of the ethanol process which can be used as cattle feed.
Sure did. But you don't get a PhD in chemistry and not know what "inverse" means.
And you can KMA.
No, the ethanol slide also shows total energy in.
The word game being played is this slide does not count total energy, but only fossil energy. See the word choice in the upper left hand corner. For Ethanol, they show that energy going in for fuel as Solar, but since this is a biased report, they only count the fossil input for this particular number.
"Do you think slide 12 is a mistake? It is very clear the total energy needed for gasoline is mostly comprised of the fuel itself."
No, I think it is ambiguous, and can be interpreted either your way or my way.
No, it breaks it down exactly as I am saying. On the left the first group counts total fuel input, solar, fossil, electricity. In that group you can see the claim that Corn Ethanol process consumes ~3/4 of the energy the fuel contains. Gasoline consumes ~1/4 of the total. The dark and light shading are clearly indicated.
Go to the middle group and there are the numbers represented from the other graphic we are discussing. It is not total energy but only compares fossil energy. It is very clear that in this comparison gasolines number contains the energy in the fuel itself while the different ethanols do not.
Figure 2 in the Science article is much clearer.
Then let us look at that figure.
It SPECIFICALLY says energy USED to make the product (either ethanol or gasoline).
No it does not. The title on the graph is Petroleum Input. But the notes for figure 2 clear make my point.
Fig. 2. Alternative metrics for evaluating ethanol based on the intensity of primary energy inputs (MJ) per MJ of fuel and of net greenhouse gas emissions (kg CO2-equivalent) per MJ of fuel. For gasoline, both petroleum feedstock and petroleum energy inputs are included.
It clearly states it is counting not only energy inputs but the product itself.
This is about energy USED to make product, not an "energy balance" calculation.
No, both studies specifically make the point either in the graphic with shading or in the description of the graphic, that they are also counting the product.
Then you should have no problem explaining the point I made concerning the graphic.
If you claim the numbers do not include the fuel itself, then do the same with the coal and try to explain that one the same way. If so, we will go back to the charts for total energy used in the US and you can explain where all that energy comes from.
Wow, standards have really slipped. I guess you understand "inverse" but get confused between 1.23 and 2.23.
It's discussions such as this confirm that most beneficial of all uses of ethanol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.