His stance on ethanol sets Cal professor apart

It began benignly enough as an assignment for the 15 freshmen in Tad Patzek's UC Berkeley college seminar class. But it soon mushroomed into something much larger.

Patzek found himself in the national spotlight as his scientific paper published in June touched raw nerves throughout the nation's energy and farm industries. Gas prices were climbing higher; Congress was in the midst of drafting an energy policy; and the article criticized one possible solution -- making ethanol fuel from corn.

Hundreds of newspapers wrote about the publication. E-mails flooded Patzek's in-box. People yelled at him over the phone. He was invited to the National Press Club in Washington to debate the issue and to Chicago to speak to investors.

Patzek and David Pimentel, a Cornell scientist who had been a lone public voice against corn ethanol for more than 30 years, argued that corn ethanol did the environment more harm than good. Growing corn, fertilizing the fields, transporting it to the factories and then out to where it was needed took more energy than the resulting ethanol would ultimately generate, they said.

Detractors, including corn growers, federal government researchers and other academics, took offense at Patzek's stance. They saw ethanol as an environment-friendly way of reducing the nation's dependence on foreign fossil fuels.

Opponents pointed to Patzek's oil industry days, saying he had ulterior motives. They said he and Pimentel knew nothing about agriculture and had relied on irrelevant data. They even criticized the premise of Patzek's arguments, which were based on the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

Patzek, 52, took the criticisms in stride. He is a mostly good-humored man who possesses an unflappable, but not pretentious, confidence in his intellect. And having grown up in post-World War II Poland under the Communist regime, he already knew well the role of rebel.

Patzek's rebellious roots extend at least as far back as his grandfather, a Polish officer during World War II who spent five years in a German concentration camp. To stave off the boredom and despair that permeated the camp, Patzek's grandfather, a physicist, taught physics to anyone who would listen, and organized a theater.

In postwar Poland, Patzek's father also rebelled. He joined a student militia group when the Russian army liberated the town of Gliwice where he was studying at the university. When he fired on Russian soldiers threatening some women, he was expelled, although later allowed to return. He also refused to join the Communist party, though the choice meant he could not teach despite a doctorate in chemical engineering.

As a young boy, his father continually quizzed Patzek, giving him hypothetical situations, then asking him to decide between right and wrong.

In high school, Patzek took his education into his own hands. He liked learning on his own better than at school and began staying home three of six days to study. When his teachers got wind of his program, they agreed to it, but only if he met higher standards than the other students.

Patzek rebelled against Communism in high school and college. His views were so well-known that like his father he was forbidden to teach at Silesian Technical University after graduating with a master's degree. Communist officials told him he would "deprive the Polish youth of their innocence."

While a graduate student at the Polish Academy of Sciences, Patzek, then 26, helped organize the first Solidarity chapter at the chemical engineering center -- before it was legal to do so.

If the foundation of his defiance was laid in Poland, so too was a fierce loyalty to the environment. His family's house lay on the edge of fields and forest that stretched as far as the eye could see. Returning for a visit to Poland in 1991 after 10 years in the United States, he saw the destruction wrought by industrialization. Large homes had replaced the fields. Gone were the swamp, creeks, frogs and storks.

"It was affirmation of what I already knew," he said. "That we humans do a lot of bad things to the environment."

Patzek's life is nearly consumed by his work. "He is a workaholic, that's for sure," said his wife of 25 years, Joanna.

When not at work, he's often reading, late at night and during meals. He even reads while they watch a movie, though that doesn't stop him from commenting, she said. Typical books have titles such as "Carbon-Nitrogen-Sulfur, the Environmental Science of Dirty Water," "The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won't Run the World" and the three-part volume of "A History of Common Human Delusions."

At parties and at the dinner table, he's always teaching or prompting discussions around "what we should and shouldn't do," Joanna Patzek said. Current topics include saving water with shorter showers, dangerous chemicals in cosmetics and, of course, ethanol.

In his personal life, Patzek thinks somewhat obsessively about how to be a good citizen to the environment. During the summer, he rides his bike a few times a week to UC Berkeley from the Oakland hills. He drives his Nissan Altima, which gets 34 miles per gallon, only about 8,000 miles a year. Walks on the beach were never just that; he, his wife and their three grown children are always armed with bags to pick up trash. Insulating his house is an ongoing project, and he plans to try solar panels on the roof.

But until he joined the corn ethanol debate, Patzek's professional work didn't touch directly on environmental concerns. Instead, he focused on energy, working for seven years at Shell Development Co. His contribution to society was to help provide the fossil fuels it needed, he told himself.

By the time he left Shell, his philosophical views had changed. "I realized that society will never have enough energy," Patzek said. "We are incurable addicts. Our national policy is to satisfy the addict."

As a professor at UC Berkeley, he continued research that looked at how to efficiently extract fossil fuels. But he was bothered by the increasing environmental damage done as the oil fields became depleted. He began thinking about how he as a scientist could take a bigger, more relevant and more holistic approach to society's problems.

The ethanol corn debate may have thrust him into just that. What started almost as a whim after reading a book by Pimentel has become much larger. Patzek is now planning a center at UC Berkeley to take a careful look at all energy sources, including fossil fuels, biofuels like ethanol, solar and nuclear. He wants scientists to devise a common framework for evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of each. Such a forum is necessary to inform U.S. policy, he said.

Patzek's opponents on the other side of the corn ethanol discussion have similar concerns about the diminishing supply of fossil fuels.

But to hear them debate one can't help but wonder whether either hears anything the other says. Each accuses the other of misrepresenting, misusing and excluding data, as well as not understanding the full scope of the problem. And while supporters argue corn ethanol can be part of the energy solution, Patzek argues vehemently that it cannot.

"However you look at it, this is a rather inefficient way of concentrating solar energy into fuel," he said. It takes more energy to make ethanol than what is produced, he said.

In addition, he argues that ultimately, ethanol can contribute only a single-digit portion of the nation's fuel. Yet it causes environmental damage with pesticides and fertilizers, and co-opts land that could otherwise be dedicated to food.

There is no magic bullet to replace fossil fuels, Patzek said. He says the United States drastically needs to reduce its energy use. Fuel efficiency standards need to rise. People must commute less by living closer to work. Food should be produced locally, instead of shipped and trucked from far-away places.

Patzek's harshest critics in the corn ethanol debate say he is ignorant and arrogant.

"I think he needs to do his homework, spend some time actually learning things before he talks about them," said Bruce Dale, a professor of chemical engineering and materials science at Michigan State University.

Friendlier opponents, like Rick Tolman, CEO of the National Corn Growers Association, say Patzek has no practical knowledge of farms or a typical ethanol production plant. Nonetheless, Patzek earned Tolman's respect at the National Press Club debate when he remained composed and friendly even when eight people consecutively stood up to shoot his logic down.

"Patzek's point is the same as ours," said John Sheehan, a senior engineer at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado. "The size of the energy problem is huge."

For the sake of the country, the differences between the two sides should be worked out, Sheehan said.

"It has to be worked out," he said. "Because this country has to make rational choices."

Why should people be driving big trucks and SUVs that get 10 mpg when they could be driving full sized cars (like a camry or accord) that gets 30 mpg?

It's already started to happen. Sales of smaller family cars have really taken off recently because they offer plentiful interior space and decent fuel efficiency (for example, the Honda Accord powered by the 166 bhp (SAE 08/04 net) 2.4-liter I-4 engine has surprising amount of "pep" yet will get over 30 mpg on steady freeway driving).

Just wait till the Honda Fit arrives in March 2006. That amazingly little car (which is not much bigger than the current BMW-developed Mini!) has almost same interior passenger space as the 7th-generation Civic sedan, which means the car is perfect as a commuter car, especially in California.

"Well I guess I am not conservative on this issue then because it makes no sense to be driving vehicles that get 10 mpg. That is our problem in this country. Get higher efficiency and most of our problem is solved."

No, you're not. A situational statist.

Guess what happens when people drive vehicles that get 10mpg: THEY PAY THE COST OF THE GAS!

It is their choice and THEY are the ones paying the price, not you. Heck, if you don't like it, DRIVE LESS!

I propose a law to save gas: Hendrix must drive less.

Get certain people (in this case, I will determine the certain people) to drive less, they will use less gas, and most of our fuel problem is solved!

It isn't a matter of cost effective. It is a matter of net energy gain. Corn is an expensive crop to grow--energy to plant, to harvest, to produce nitrogen fertilizer, to transport, to process etc. You sum up the energy consumed and subtract it from the energy gained from capturing the sun's energy and you get a negative number. Believe me, I wish it wasn't that way because I raise corn, but I don't see ethanol as a solution to our energy needs.

Go ahead and drive a little shitbox with very poor crash test results. That's your own personal decision. My personal decision is to drive an explorer. You do not buy or subsidize my gas. I subsidize road construction for you through gas taxes.

That's a good place to start.

Jojoba plants require a great range, new harvesting methods might have to be developed, but its history is fascinating; I read, early on, that its chemical composition is almost identical to sperm whale oil and for that reason, GM used it as an additive for their "Posi-traction" locking differentials to stop cornering chatter.

"Firstly, even the largest generally-purchased SUVs get nearly double that on the highway."

B.S. In everyday driving, those vehicles are using at least twice as much gas as an ordinary car, and the gas milage is much closer to 10 mpg than what you stated (I have owned a few myself). There are some people (a very small amount compared to how many own them) who truely do need a truck or an SUV because of their business, farming, etc., but most people don't need them and buy them because they are in style. People did not have them years ago and got by without them, even when they needed plywood, etc. The vast majority of people do not need an SUV--they buy them because they are in style.

Why should people be driving big trucks and SUVs that get 10 mpg when they could be driving full sized cars

Do you want a government that controls how big your house may be? How far you are allowed to travel for vacation? How far away from work you are allowed to live? What kind of recreation you do? (boating, racing, RV's all consume fuel)

None of those topics are different than determining what kind of vehicle you are allowed to drive.

If something does not make sense, then there does need to be a better reason.

Says who?

You might very well question why, but here in the US you are not entitled to an answer.

"Guess what happens when people drive vehicles that get 10mpg: THEY PAY THE COST OF THE GAS!"

And it makes everyone's gas prices go up because it is increasing the demand for gas. Plus, it is putting out twice the pollution that we all have to breath just so you can look cool driving your SUV.

"Do you want a government that controls how big your house may be? How far you are allowed to travel for vacation? How far away from work you are allowed to live? What kind of recreation you do? (boating, racing, RV's all consume fuel)"

Well of course not. But are fuel efficiency is already regulated, and it has been for years.

But you due want to regulate what car people can drive. How is that different from regulating what size house people live in? Those big homes consume more fuel heating and cooling and use more building materials.

When you chose to travel a far distance for a vacation, you produce pollution for others to breath. How is that any different?

If gasoline hits the $5/gallon mark will ethanol be more cost effective?

All energy prices are relative. The cost to produce ethanol rises along with the price of gasoline , diesel and natural gas. The only things making ethanol appear as an effective energy alternative are Federal and State subsidies and tax breaks. The only sensible thing to do with ethanol is to drink it.

I am not an Ethanol nut but I don't see these figures as being correct.

The heat required to distill mash into alcohol is about 170 degrees farenheit. You could use waste heat from other industrial processes to do it without using any more energy but even if you buy the energy to heat the mash we are not talking about high pressure and temps like in the refining of oil.

A farmer filling his tractor with diesel does not equal the energy costs of drilling and building multimillion dollar oil platforms.

Transportation is an advantage with oil through pipelines but the transportation of grain isn't much different than how we transport coal through railroads and barges and coal is considered a cheap energy for big power producers.

I would like to see how much energy is needed to make a gallon of gas vrs a gallon of ethanol to see how they stack up.

Personally I don't think ethanol will take off not because of energy but because corn will be too high a price thanks to demand for food and other uses.

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.