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
The primary product of my cows is companionship. Ethanol, on the other hand, makes us all smarter and better looking.
Bump
Corn and distillers grains obviously have different feed qualities, so the extent to which the distillers grains can substitute for the corn would vary from farm to farm based upon what kind of animal is being fed and under what circumstances. At least on my farm, when corn was cheap, I used to feed it for purposes that would be somewhat inefficient for more expensive corn. For instance, the high energy content of corn allows me to increase the feed ration to an animal above that necessary for maintenance or the desired weight gain, with the excess calories substituting for shelter in the winter. I didn't do that this winter.
Bred heifers or cows require more protein than open animals; calves require more than steers on the feedlot. How much distillers grain can be substituted for corn varies based upon the protein needs, how that protein was previously supplied, what other alternatives exist, and so forth. Distillers grains are more efficiently digested by ruminants than is corn, so when it can be substituted, there should be a gain in efficiency.
It is possible to raise a calf all the way to slaughter without ever feeding it corn (and some of the silk stocking crowd will actually pay a premium for it, but I prefer rib-eyes with all that greasy marbling) If I had to pick a number out of thin air, I would guess I could over all reduce corn consumption 30% by increasing distillers grains and changing some practices.
I recognize you and I are starting with different preconceived ideas about the numbers and look at the reports trying to justify our stance. I've gone back to this slide several times trying to see what you are claiming. But I do not see a way past this legend.
How do you look at this and claim 1.23 MM Btu does not include the fuel itself? It clearly shows the BTU for fuel production is 0.23 MM Btu. What is ambiguous?
Yes, but that's because the only ENERGY "input" USED to produce the ethanol "is" fossil energy. The energy value of the PRODUCT feed is not included If it was an energy balance calculation, it the final result would be stated as 1.74 MM BTU per 1 MM BTU of ethanol.
Thus, to compare "apples to apples", the following slide is ONLY showing the ENERGY input USED to PRODUCE the gasoline--which is 1.23 MM BTU per 1MM BTU of gasoline. The fraction of the oil that comprises the raw material is properly left out of the final value.
"Then let us look at that figure."
That's NOT Figure 2. That is the right half of Figure 1.
"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.
Wrong.
I haven't bothered with it. I have only a finite amount of time to waste on this kind of stuff.
"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."
When I have more time, I'll consider it.
Todd---BITE ME!!!
Look at where the top of that little blue bar is--you'll see it aligns with 1.23 MM BTU. If it were referring to what YOU think it is, that blue section would be at the BOTTOM of the graph, with its top margin at 0.23 MM BTU. The chart, as it is, is totally consistent with my position.
As I said, it's a crappy graphic.
It's pretty clear that 1.23 oil to 1 gallon of gas is pretty close and 2.23 to 1 is not.
While enviro-whackos are mostly just that, it's time for conservatives to energetically embrace energy independence for America. Every gallon of ethanol we use to fuel any auto in America, regardless of the "mileage", is one more gallon we don't import from some country which is trying to destroy America.
Don't do it to appease the tree-huggers, do it to poke anti-American thugs and extremists in the eye, and deprive those who hate America and actively work against us every day, OF OUR MONEY. Which they use to oppose and attack us.
If a bunch of farmers in the corn belt get filthy rich and start running around Vegas like mideast oil sheiks - and if that bothers you - then move to the midwest and buy a farm.
Try to move to some mideast country and buy an oil well.
That's not going to happen.
Anyone, on the other hand, can raise corn.
In all of the bars, the content of the fuel is placed on the bottom of the stacked bar from 0 to 1 MM BTU. The same for ethanol and gasoline. The light blue goes from 1.23 to 1, a total of 0.23. Do you really not know how to read a stacked bar chart?
You haven't addressed the other points. The Science article you thought was much clearer states their number for gasoline includes "both petroleum feedstock and petroleum energy inputs". The fossil energy ratio chart for gasoline and coal must be interpreted the same way. If the ratio does not include the original content of the fuel, where is the US getting all the energy to process the coal and the gasoline?
He has a PhD in chemistry. You expect him to be able to read a chart?
He took his position and will stick to it no matter how much proof we provide showing he's mistaken.
Which is exactly what is shows in the left hand group of the bar charts, Total Energy. When it becomes selective energy comparison of only fossil fuels, the energy content of the gasoline is included and the energy content of the ethanol is not. This makes a misleading comparison.
That's NOT Figure 2. That is the right half of Figure 1.
You are correct, I am sorry for the mistake. Figure 2 is shown in psot #149. The 1.1 contains both the energy of the petroleum feedstock and the petroleum energy input.
The above is a direct quote from the Wang paper. What this means is that the bar chart is NOT "stacked", but superimposed.
"The fossil energy ratio chart (post 166) for gasoline and coal must be interpreted the same way. If the ratio does not include the original content of the fuel, where is the US getting all the energy to process the coal and the gasoline?"
What--the chart says exactly what I contend--that to make gasoline you consume 1.23 MM BTU of energy to yield 1MM BTU of gasoline---an energy ratio of 1/1.23 or 0.81--precisely what the chart gives. Treating coal the same way says you burn 1.09 MM BTU of energy to produce 1 MM BTU of coal energy. This absolutely makes sense, because production of coal is less energy intensive than gasoline. With coal, you dig it up, transport it to the point of end use, and burn it. No energy consuming refining step is necessary.
To go yet further, the FER of ethanol is given as 1.36. Exactly a ratio of 1/0.73. Looks like all this agrees with what I'm saying.
To put this as simply as possible--in ENERGY BALANCE terms, the gasoline must start out with a TOTAL amount of "feedstock energy" plus "production energy" of 2.23 MM BTU, and for coal, the starting point is 2.09 MM BTU of "feedstock energy" plus "production energy".
Now, let's calculate the FER "your" way. Assuming we burn only 0.23 MM BTU of energy to produce 1 MM BTU of gasoline, the FER for gasoline would be 4.3. No number like that on the chart, now is there.
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.