Ethanol is a loser (My Title)

Cornell Chronicle ^ | August 23, 2001 | Roger Segelken

[DrNo]

Neither increases in government subsidies to corn-based ethanol fuel nor hikes in the price of petroleum can overcome what one Cornell agricultural scientist calls a fundamental input-yield problem: It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion of ethanol produces. The Rest of the Story

[DrNo]

Some time ago, I posted that I had read of a study that said it took more petroleum to produce ethanol than it did to produce gasoline.

Well, a Wall Street Journal editorial, "More Corn Pone" May 20, 2002, cited a study critical of ethanol by Cornell Professor, David Pimentel, so I tracked this down on Cornell's web site.

[capt. norm]

"But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel's analysis.

Sorry dud...I was born and raised on an Iowa farm. He has inflated those costs enough to make a condom assume the size of the Graf Zepplin.

[ricer1]

Ed Wallace hosts a Dallas radio show Wheels, with Ed Wallace (KLIF) and he has been a long time advocate of no ethanol. According to Ed, the EPA admitted that gasoline with ethanol burned dirtier than reformulated gas (with MTBE). Ed asserts that this was recorded in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in the 1994 court case of the American Petroleum Institute vs. EPA. I've not been able to obtain any material on this case to verify it, but Ed is a top-notch guy that I would question...

[jigsaw]

He has inflated those costs enough to make a condom assume the size of the Graf Zepplin.

That small, eh?

[DrNo]

The WSJ editorial stated that EPA was investigating claims that ethanol-producing factories were polluting at higher than expected levels, but that "...ethanol had 'little impact in improving ozone air quality'..."

[Ju'aymah]

capt. norm - it may interest you to know that ISU in '74 said that it took as much energy to get a gallon of ethanol as there was energy in that gallon. In other words, it was barely break-even. You had to account for the leftovers from distillation as cattle feed to make it break even.

[Physicist]

He has inflated those costs enough to make a condom assume the size of the Graf Zepplin.

What's the correct figure?

If you know anyone who grows corn, see whether you can find out how many acres they plant, and how much fuel they've purchased in the past year. We could draw our own conclusions, rather than take this guy's word for it.

[RightWhale]

That's right. But suppose the idea is to find a substiture for oil products. Call ethanol a conversion rather than production. It won't save money, but it will replace another source of fuel in the event that foreign sources are cut off.

[spunkets]

The farmer's fuel costs are quite low. It costs ~$100/acre to plant and none of the farmers I've talked to note the fuel costs well enough to get a per acre value. I never did either and here's why. The tractor consumes ~1.5-2.5 gals/hr.
acre is 70yds/side
Say the plow, planter, or fertilizer bar covers 6yds.
Then the distance cover by the tractor is 1633yds, almost a mile.
The tractor does 3-7MPH depending on the job.
Say he does most jobs at 4MPH, that'll cover 4 passes over the acre and spend about a gal of diesel.
It's only a few % of the cost. The prof must be considering the ffuel to produce the fertilizer, seed, transport and run the air conditioner for the accountants.

[spunkets]

That's a little over 2 gals/acre.

[Ben Ficklin]

The Ethanol Scam

The above page is found at The Energy Advocate which has much info on various topics related to energy.

[Physicist]

none of the farmers I've talked to note the fuel costs well enough to get a per acre value.

Right. But they must know the total spent by the farm on fuel for the whole year. Divide that by the acreage and you'll get an accurate figure for the fuel cost per acre. (I'm assuming a farm that is dedicated to growing corn.) That figure would also include "overhead" costs associated with running the farm, sure, but it's appropriate to include them in the average.

[spunkets]

I'd guess about 3 gals/acre for the farmer. My post 9 gave most of the consideration...add cultivation and harvest. The farmer might use a more, or less efficient tractor and the soil condition and job at hand determine the speed(4MPH is a good avg). 200 bushels/acre is a good yield, but depending on soil and a host of other conditions...100-300 bushels/acre. Some folks plant corn(~$1.8/bushel) with the expectation of lower yield.

[jackbill]

That's right. But suppose the idea is to find a substiture for oil products. Call ethanol a conversion rather than production. It won't save money, but it will replace another source of fuel in the event that foreign sources are cut off.

If "foreign sources are cut", what are you going to use as energy to convert the corn to ethanol? Ethanol? But you can't get any more out than you put in.

Wanna rethink your statement?

[aomagrat]

The only alcohol made from corn I'm interested in is the drinking kind.

[RightWhale]

Wanna rethink your statement?

No.

[FreedomFarmer]

It costs me $.07 a bushel. Complete. Taxes, fuel, everything.

$.07

I get @ 8 gallons of ethanol from one bushel of corn from my Y2K still. More efficient distillation would get me in the 10-12 gallon range.

Doesn't have the BTU's of gasoline, (or the MPG), but at less than a penny per gallon, I don't give a shit.

I do need some expert help on my soy diesel output, but it sure smells good.

For years, Brazil exported nearly all their oil to the US, and ran their VW's on ethanol.

[jackbill]

:Wanna rethink your statement?

No.

OK. Oh, by the way, the earth is not flat.

[RightWhale]

flat earth.

To survey accuracy, any cornfield less than a square mile is in fact treated as flat earth.

Another probably little-known and nearly useless bit of info. Unless you're a land surveyor.