Ethanol Growth Unites OPEC and Environmental Fringe

At the same time that a major new report concluding that the United States could produce 90 billion gallons of renewable ethanol a year was released, Saudi Arabia's oil minister attacked biofuels for undermining oil development and fringe U.S. environmental groups announced their preference for continued gasoline consumption over the use of ethanol. Who would have thought it?

This week, the Department of Energy's Sandia National Laboratory underscored the potential of American ethanol producers to replace 90 billion gallons of gasoline a year using America's abundant biomass resources to produce renewable ethanol. Recently, we also learned of the breakthrough by vehicle engine technology company Ricardo in developing an engine capable of utilizing the high performance qualities of ethanol and erasing any mileage penalty as a result of ethanol's lower BTU content compared to gasoline.

Not coincidentally, Saudi Arabian Oil Minister Ali Naimi once again took a shot at renewable energy technologies, arguing that investments in these technologies would undermine the world oil industry (I think that is kinda of the point). "We must be mindful that efforts to rapidly promote alternatives could have a 'chilling effect' on investment in the oil sector," Ali Naimi told an oil conference in Houston this week. You will recall that the Minister attacked ethanol and other renewable fuels last year just as oil prices were heading to the stratosphere. While flawed, you have to give him credit for consistency. No matter the price of oil, he wants to keep the world hooked.

Then, the anti-ethanol public relations campaign fired up its oil-driven spin engine to bolster Ali Naimi's argument. Led by the Environmental Working Group, a leading member of the coalition headed by the Grocery Manufacturer's Association, a group of fringe environmental groups argued that gasoline was better than ethanol, particularly derived from corn. In a recycle of rehashed rhetoric, the groups argued for a halt to the domestic ethanol industry and implicitly gave support to Minister Naimi's position that the world must continue to devour its oil resources.

Minister Ali Naimi's fear of renewable fuels is understandable. He is trying to protect the economic interests of his nation's oil industry and those of other OPEC nations by whatever means necessary. For environmental activists to side with OPEC to protect the oil status quo is downright illogical and raises questions as to the real motives of such groups and the credibility and legitimacy of their arguments.

Ethanol and other biofuels to come are part of the world's answer to unsustainable and dangerous reliance on non-renewable and polluting petroleum. In supporting these alternative energy sources and addressing energy efficiency questions, we can begin to mitigate the economic, environmental and energy crises that are linked by our addiction to oil.

Comments

[SARGE1]

America is clearly doing its share in feeding the world.
Agriculture is not a zero-sum game. There are 800 million acres of farmland in the U.S., and only about 30 percent of it is actually being used to grow anything. As a result of the ethanol program, the corn price received by farmers doubled over the last five years, causing a huge increase in the amount grown in terms of acreage and yield.

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/may/06/food/chi-oped0506fuelmay06

BIO Fuel Along With Wind And Solar Are The Key To Get Off Of OPECs Straggle Hold.

Sarge

[research]

SARGE! you just disproved your own argument. "As a result of the ethanol program, the corn price received by farmers doubled over the last five years,"

Why did the price double? If the land was available, it should have stayed low.

Obviously farm land is not sitting idle.

All the land is used for: crops, trees or pasture.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/US.htm

Sugar Cane in Brazil works great.

Corn is just not efficient enough.

[psaurian]

Sarge -- I'm not clear, is the land you are referring to that isn't being used to grow anything conservation land?

[SARGE1]

Ethanol fuel in Brazil
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Six typical Brazilian flex-fuel models from several car makers, popularly called "flex" cars, that run on any blend of hydrous ethanol (E100) and gasoline (E20 to E25).Brazil is the world's second largest producer of ethanol and the world's largest exporter, and it is considered to have the world's first sustainable biofuels economy and the biofuel industry leader.[1][2][3][4] Together, Brazil and the United States lead the industrial world in global ethanol production, accounting together for 70% of the world's production[5] and nearly 90% of ethanol used for fuel. [6] In 2006 Brazil produced 16.3 billion litres (4.3 billion U.S. liquid gallons),[7] which represents 33.3% of the world's total ethanol production and 42% of the world's ethanol used as fuel.[6] Brazil’s 30-year-old ethanol fuel program uses modern equipment and cheap sugar cane as feedstock, the residual cane-waste (bagasse) is used to process heat and power, which results in a very competitive price and also in a high energy balance (output energy/input energy), which varies from 8.3 for average conditions to 10.2 for best practice production.[3][8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil

So Case Closed BIO Fuel Works !!

-Sarge

[research]

Cane IS very good for biofule. Corn is not. We can't grow Cane here.

[SARGE1]

Ethanol success story in Brazil
After reading several conflicting articles about whether ethanol is a viable alternative fuel for cars I was surprised to see a report on Dateline NBC last Sunday about the situation in Brazil. The report said three of every four new cars sold in Brazil have flex-fuel technology that enables them to operate with either gasoline or ethanol, known locally as alcohol. According to reporter Stone Phillips, the key to ethanol's popularity in Brazil is choice. Those who drove flex-fuel cars get to choose every time they pull up to the pump. They check the prices and make their choice. Most drivers choose ethanol because it's so much cheaper that even though they get fewer miles per gallon, it still saves them money. The flex-fuel cars that triggered the ethanol boom were introduced only three years ago. A little online checking found other reports about the Brazil experience on CBS, NBC, Associated Press and The Washington Post.

http://saveenergy.owenscorningblog.com/2006/05/ethanol_success_story_in_brazi.html

So Lets Be Honest Corn Is One On The Weaker Out Puts Of Energy But Some How Has Be Come The Face For All Those "Nay Sayers". So Get Past The Same Lame BS Spouting And Brazil Is 100% Prove That Ethanol Works !!

-Sarge

[SARGE1]

Please Read :

http://gogreenhastings.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3&Itemid=1

In 2006, Brazil officially achieved "energy independence" -- that is, its oil exports came into line with imports and cancelled them out. No longer beholden to foreign suppliers for its energy needs, the nation theoretically has no stake in costly Middle East military adventures to secure access to oil reserves.

http://grist.org/news/maindish/2006/12/14/brazil/

-Sarge

[TJCole]

Industrial Hemp....lift the ban on it and creates thousands of Green Jobs and get fuel and it eats CO2..renews every four months...

http://hemp4fuel.com/page.php?2

or go here

http://hemp4fuel.com

[zeebruce]

Ethanol takes land out of food production and uses it for fuel for vehicles which should be considered a crime against humanity considering the devastation this has already caused around the world. It also requires massive federal subsidies that would be better directed toward solar and wind power and electric trains, trolleys, and cars.

If like Europe, and the USA before Standard Oil, Firestone Tire, and GM Coach got together and bought up all the electric trolley lines and converted them to buses, more people had the option of using fast and efficient mass transit instead of cars to go to work, school, restaurants, shopping, and other trips.

There is a huge amount of waste in manufacturing, maintaining, insuring, driving, and then disposing of millions of 4000 pound are cars used to transport one or two 150 pound people. There is also a health cost in spending time sitting behind the wheel of a car and consuming fast food made with subsidized corn, corn syrup, and high fat beef and heavily drugged chickens, instead of walking to a trolley stop or train station and the effect is easily measured in the waist size of the average obese American of which Mr. Dinnen is clearly a prime example.

[Seastone]

I have to agree with this comment. People refuse to address the true problems concerning sustainability and absolutely refuse to change any aspect of their lifestyles to do the right thing. The automobile culture is absurd and is totally unsustainable. One issue that we don't often think about is the automobile infrastructure. The resources needed (and subsidized by tax dollars) to develop and maintain roads, traffic lights, auto bridges, street signs, street drainage, and on and on and on...is unfathomable. And this doesn't take into account the conflicts around the world over oil, gas, etc. A small fraction of the above costs would facilitate effective, clean and fast public transit. It is only a matter of time but the longer we wait for this transformation away from private transit, the more damage will be done to the environment and the more of the worlds resources will be squandered. In addition, the economy would benefit big time from the development and operating of public transit.

[SARGE1]

Food vs. fuel a global myth

In recent weeks, a flood of reports and statements has claimed that theworld’s biofuel programs – in particular the U.S. corn ethanol effort – isstarving poor people around the globe. Even the UN’s special rapporteur forthe Right to Food decried biofuel production as “a crime against humanity.”
It seems so obvious: With so much corn being turned into fuel, food shortages must inevitably result, and biofuel programs must be the cause.However, that’s completely untrue.
Here are the facts. In the last five years, despite the nearly threefold growth of the corn ethanol industry (or actually because of it), the U.S. corncrop grew by 35 percent, the production of distillers grain (a high-value animal feed made from the protein saved from the corn used for ethanol)quadrupled and the net corn food and feed product of the U.S. increased 26percent.
Contrary to claims that farmers have cut other crops to grow more corn,U.S. soybean plantings this year are expected to be up 18 percent and wheat plantings up 6 percent. U.S. farm exports are up 23 percent.

So As You Can See America Has "Increased Food Production !

-Sarge

[research]

Here's how they get to a 30% net energy gain:

"As discussed earlier, some researchers prefer
addressing the energy security issue by looking at the
net energy gain of ethanol from a liquid fuels standpoint.
In this case,

only the liquid fossil fuels used to
grow corn and produce ethanol are considered in the
analysis.

On a weighted average basis, about
83 percent

of the total energy requirements come from non-liquid fuels, such as

coal and natural gas.

The liquid fuels, which include gasoline, diesel, and fuel
oil, account for about 21,700 Btu per bushel.
Calculations based on liquid fuel use provide an estimate
of the petroleum displacement value of ethanol.
Comparing the energy input value of liquid fuels to the
total Btu output value of ethanol indicates a net energy
gain of about 70,600 Btu for every bushel of corn used
in the production of ethanol. In other words, one Btu
of liquid fossil fuel, used in combination with other
forms of energy, can produce 6.34 Btu of fuel ethanol."

Funny, how the most of the other studies found net negative energy. This article list the other studies, but comes to the above odd conclusion.

http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/aer-814.pdf

[doctorkosan]

There are several factual errors in these comments. The annual gasoline usage in the USA is 145 billion gallons per year. So the 90 billion that Sandia says is doable would virtually eliminate the need to import oil to burn in cars.
There is not enough hemp to supply the annual need for cellulose. It will be a combination of wood waste and agricultural waste with limited need for purposely grown plants.
The production of ethanol from corn generates 30% more energy than it takes to produce it. This is the scientifically determined balance done by the Dept of Energy. The no energy gain claims are done by the oil producers apologists­/frontmen.
Ethanol burns cleaner than gasoline.

[research]

You left out diesel, and the lower energy content of ethanol.

145 gasoline. +7/20ths diesel * 1/.7 = about 300B equivalent ethanol gallons per year.

30% is what ONE recent study says.

Here's a very complete study.

Net energy results vary from -30% (energy loss) to +30% (gallon oil in, 1.6+? gallons ethanol out.

That's not including the sunlight used for growing the crop. Add that in, even with 10% solar panels, and it's always negative net energy.

The tiny % of ethanol used has already spiked the price of corn, change the acreage us from 80% soybean, to 80% ethanol corn in just a few years.

We need all the land for FOOD.

[TJCole]

The best bio fuel or source for cellulose ethanol and bio diesel for America is Industrial Hemp...

It renews every 4 months and eats CO2 like crazy...this is one of the most important easy and cheap means for us to achieve energy independence along with other such as Solar and Wind...also we can create charcoal from it which could replace the use of Dirty Coal..!

Here read this....He­mp4Fuel.co­m

Give it time to boot up, as it is getting so many hits these days...

http://hemp4fuel.com/page.php?2

[research]

that's about 20% of our gasoline needs.

Corn Ethanol is near net zero energy payback and competes our need for food.

Only Agricultural "waste" should be used for biofuels,

else we starve while driving to the store.

Wind, Solar, plug in hybrids and natural gas is a viable path.

The Picken's plan, with accelerated Solar to prevent a spike in Natural gas demand.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research

[psaurian]

This argument makes as much sense as subsidizing ethanol.

[HeevenSteven]

Why are you calling the enviros "fringe"?? Corn ethanol IS a farce!

[saibotchilizm]

Production of corn ethanol is an environmental disaster. Production of 1 BTU of ethanol requires consumption of 1 BTU of fossil fuels, in fertilizer, gasoline, and etc. It also leads to widespread deforestation worldwide.

Ethanol produces more carbon than gasoline over the course of its life-cycle. Read why here: http://www.openecosource.org/renewable-energy/land-clearing-and-biofuel-carbon-debt

Burning ethanol in your gastank is not "renewable" by any metric; in terms of environmental quality, you are better off burning gasoline. THAT is why environmental groups oppose corn ethanol production. Do your research.