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."

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).

I have a 2000 FS extended cab pickup with 4wd. My normal driving is 15-20mpg.

People did not have them years ago and got by without them, even when they needed plywood, etc.

That's because, before the fuel economy standard, most people would buy a fs station wagon. You could haul six to nine people (great for families), haul plywood or drywall, or tow boats or trailers. Those got a lot better mileage than SUVs and would probably be great options today, but are no longer an option because of fuel economy laws.

Additionally, FS RWD vehicles used to do pretty well in snow. Even with FWD, most vehicles today are pathetic in comparison to an SUV with 4wd/awd.

The only vehicles that you seem to consider "ordinary" (using 3x your 10mpg figure) are Scions, Metros and other lightweight compact vehicles with no hauling capacity. They are woefully inadequate for anything outside of commuting and I wouldn't want to risk my life in one during a NE Ohio winter.

This to me is the first place we need to start. 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?

I dunno. Why do people live 65 miles form their place of work so that they have to drive their Toyota's and Honda's 135 miles a day and end up using a heck of a lot more gas than I do driving my SUV 15 miles a day? Why do people live in 3000 square foot energy sucking houses when they could live in a 1600 square foot, enery efficient raised ranch? Why do people fly first class knowing that the airling could fly more people using the same amount of fuel if all seats were coach? Why do people waste gas drive to church on Sunday, when they can watch Church TV from their comfort of their own living room? Why do people shop at Walmart knowing that the goods that are buying are manufactered in Southeast Asia and shipped to this country in large energy gulping container ships? My point is that before anyone starts bitching about the energy consumption of others, they really ought to take a good hard look at their overall lifestyle and not just the kind of car he or she drives.

"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?"

Very good points, but we currently regulate cars (safety features, pollution features, fuel efficiency, etc.) and have been for years, so I don't see any real problem with just increasing the fuel efficiency of our cars. I certainly would not want to start regulating everything, and I can see your point that some communists would love to regulate everything and make us all live in inner cities and ride mass transit systems. I don't want to go past regulating cars to what makes sense and simply because we already regulate them. I would never want to regulate homes, distance from work, etc. I can see your point that it could become a slippery slope to more regulations in other areas, but I would be against that.

As was mentioned in the article, the laws of thermo-dynamics are in full effect. The energy you put into it will always be more than the energy you get out of it. Also, the mileage of equal parts of gasoline and alcohol are not equal. The energy content of alcohol is much less than that of gasoline. I don't know the actual numbers, but I think it's like 33% less than gasoline. So a tank of Gasoline that goes 400 miles would only go 264 miles on alcohol...............

Fuel may still be made from a corn crop WITHOUT using the grain to ferment into a form of beer, which is further concentrated by distillation.

The bulk of the rest of the plant, including the cob at the middle of the ear of corn, can all be run through a heated retort, under pressure, with temperatures of about 900º Fahrenheit, for a period of about two hours, which reduces the carbohydrates (mostly cellulose and complex sugars) into hydrocarbons and somewhat saline water. The hydrocarbons make up a fairly good grade of crude oil, which may then be further refined into various fractions, lubricating oil, Diesel oil and unleaded gasoline, as well as feedstocks for plastics and industrical chemicals.

Like the production of ethanol, the process takes a good deal of energy to get it into continuous operation, but by careful engineering, it would be possible to reclaim a major portion of the heat energy, and maintain a continous output.

The grain is still available for consumption as foodstuff, the trash from its harvest is recycled, and the agricultural enterprise becomes self-sufficient in fuel production.

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.

Ah if this is true wouldn't the economics of ethanol production kill it ..I mean if a producing a gallon of ethanol consumes more than a gallon of oil then oil no matter what it's price will always be cheaper that a gallon of ethanol...

---when ethanol is used in the machinery growing the corn and in the burners of the distillation plants manufacturing it, it will have become economically feasable--

You left out the petroleum that is used make the fertilizers and pesticides. You also forgot the fuel (be it ethanol or diesel) that is burnt trucking corn to ethanol distilleries.

Shameless glorification of a pseudoscientist. His conclusions are based on skewed data and he has ties to the oil industry. Look into it--his cost assessments are based on maximum use of fertilizers (at rates used decades ago, much higher than current useage) and on minimum yield of corn (also based on decades old, worst case data). It's a bunch of crap and you should all look into it more before you start cheering for him.

I have read that diluting gasoline with ethanol is like stretching hamburger meat by adding ground filet mignon.......

Except that filet mignon is better than hamburger. Ethanol has considerably less energy per gallon than does gasoline (25%? 30%?).

At any rate, when filling up my gas tank, I at least take that into consideration. When the price for regular unleaded is within a few cents of the usually dime-cheaper ethanol-blend -- very rare here in Iowa, where ethanol is heavily subsidized -- I'll buy straight unleaded.

Alcohols are hygroscopic, they absorb water within their molecular structure from the very air; as there are always trace amounts of free sulfur in petroleum products, when the water undergoes phase-separation it can chemically combine with the sulfur to create sulfuric acid which is highly corrosive.

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?

As you likely already knew, that's no way to win friends and influence people here on the FR, where bigger is always better. ;O)

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.