« Joint Venture for Animalwaste Sludge to Biodiesel | Main | Chinese Microcar with Italian Design for European Markets »
UC Berkeley Study: Corn Ethanol is Better than Gasoline, But Not by A Lot
26 January 2006
 |
| Scatterplot of Net GHG and Net Energy Value results from the EBAMM model. Note Cellulosic ethanol to the right. Click to enlarge. |
A new analysis by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley concludes that the production of ethanol from corn uses less petroleum energy than the production of gasoline. However, they also conclude that the reduction in greenhouse gases derived by using corn ethanol as a fuel is smaller than some thought—between 10% to 15%.
The researchers note that new technologies now in development such as those for the production of cellulosic ethanol promise to make ethanol a truly green fuel with significantly less environmental impact than gasoline.
The UC Berkeley study, published in this issue of Science, deconstructed six separate high-profile—and contradictory—studies of ethanol. They assessed the studies’ assumptions and then reanalyzed each after correcting errors, inconsistencies and outdated information regarding the amount of energy used to grow corn and make ethanol, and the energy output in the form of fuel and corn byproducts.
It is better to use various inputs to grow corn and make ethanol and use that in your cars than it is to use the gasoline and fossil fuels directly. The people who are saying ethanol is bad are just plain wrong.
But it isn’t a huge victory—you wouldn’t go out and rebuild our economy around corn-based ethanol.
—Dan Kammen, co-director of the Berkeley Institute of the Environment and UC Berkeley’s Class of 1935 Distinguished Chair of Energy
The goal of the UC Berkeley analysis was to understand how six studies of fuel ethanol could come to such different conclusions about the overall energy balance in its production and use. Kammen and Alex Farrell of the Energy and Resources Group at UC Berkeley, with their students Rich Plevin, Brian Turner and Andy Jones along with Michael O’Hare, a professor in the Goldman School of Public Policy dissected each study and recreated its analysis in a spreadsheet where they could be compared side-by-side.
The studies reviewed were:
Fossil Energy Use in the Manufacture of Corn Ethanol; Dr. Michael S. Graboski, Colorado School of Mines, Prepared for the National Corn Growers Association (2002)
The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update; Hosein Shapouri, James A. Duffield, and Michael Wang; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report No. 814 (2002)
The 2001 Net Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol; Shapouri, H., Duffield, J., Mcaloon, A.J.; Proceedings Of The Conference On Agriculture As A Producer And Consumer Of Energy, Arlington, VA (2004)
The Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) Model, version 1.6; Michael Wang, Transportation Technology R&D Center, Argonne National Laboratory
“Thermodynamics of the Corn-Ethanol Biofuel Cycle”; Patzek, T.W.; Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 23(6), 519-567 (2004)
“Ethanol as Fuel: Energy, Carbon Dioxide Balances, and Ecological Footprint”; Marcelo E. Dias de Oliveira, Burton E. Vaughan, and Edward J. Rykiel, Jr.; BioScience, 55(7), 593 (2005)
“Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood; Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower”; David Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek; Natural Resource Research, 14(1), 65-76 (2005)
The UC Berkeley team has made its spreadsheet model, the Energy and Resources Group Biofuels Meta Model (EBAMM), available to the public on its Web site.
The team said it found numerous errors, inconsistencies and omissions among the studies, such as not considering the value of co-products of ethanol production—dried distillers grains, corn gluten feed and corn oil—that boost the net energy gain from ethanol production. Other studies overestimated the energy used by farm machinery.
On the other side, some studies ignored the use of crushed limestone on corn fields, which can be a significant energy input because of the need to pulverize the rock. Farrell noted that some numbers needed for the analysis, such as the amount of limestone applied, are just not known reliably. On the other hand, some of the studies used outdated data when more recent numbers were available, making ethanol look worse.
The UC Berkeley team calculated a Net Energy Value (Output energy - Input energy) for corn ethanol of 4.5 MJ/Liter. Cellulosic ethanol fares much better, with a calculated Net Energy Value of 22.8 MJ/L.
Farrell, Kammen and their colleagues considered not only the energy balance of corn ethanol production, but also the effect on the environment through production of greenhouse gases. While corn ethanol came out marginally better than gasoline in terms of greenhouse gas production, Farrell noted that corn production has other negative environmental impacts associated with fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide use. These need to be taken into account when considering the balance between corn ethanol and gasoline, though emerging cellulosic technologies using waste would push the equation more toward ethanol.
Two things are going to push the commercialization of cellulosic technology. One is driving the cost down, which is mainly research and development; the other is that environmental concerns are increasingly entering into commercial calculations about biofuels."
—Alex Farrell
Kammen estimates that ethanol could replace 20% to 30% of fuel usage in this country with little effort in just a few years. In the long term, the United States may be able to match Sweden, which recently committed to an oil-free future based on ethanol from forests and solar energy.
Kammen last year published a paper, also in Science, arguing that even Africa could exploit its biomass to build a biofuel industry that could meet energy needs for the poor and develop a sustainable local fuel supply, a future much better than using fossil fuels.
Resources:
“Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals”; Farrell, A.E., R.J. Plevin, B.T. Turner, A.D. Jones, M. O’Hare, and D. Kammen; Science, 311. 506 - 508 (2006)
January 26, 2006 in Ethanol | Permalink | Comments (46) | TrackBack (2)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/4133022
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference UC Berkeley Study: Corn Ethanol is Better than Gasoline, But Not by A Lot:
» Corn Ethanol is Better than Gasoline from Daffodil Lane
I love to see studies like this one. They are basically brutal eviscerations of the radical right wing ideology that we must sell our souls to the oil companies. Your average wingnut screams at the top of their lungs that... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 26, 2006 6:37:22 PM
» Ethanol is Better than Gasoline, But Not Much from Myke's Weblog
The bottom line for ethanol — it's a stop-gap measure for transitioning from gasoline to ? (the next auto fuel). Link: Green Car Congress: UC Berkeley Study: Corn Ethanol is Better than Gasoline, But Not by A Lot.A new analysis [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 27, 2006 9:27:15 AM
Comments
Well, that's a big win for Ethanol: it ain't bad.
Seriously. That's what it will hang it's hat on. It ain't bad.
It results in less oil consumed. That aint' bad.
It results in more jobs and money staying US-side. That ain't bad.
It results in less greenhouse gas emissions. That ain't bad.
None of it is amazing, but it ain't bad. Since every little bit helps, a move toward more ethanol would be a positive step, albeit a fairly small one in a long journey.
Posted by: stomv | Jan 26, 2006 1:51:59 PM
Please keep in mind that all farm equipment- tractors, etc, could and should be made to run on SOLID biomass ( by stirling engines) which would make the petroleum input less and the energy return better.
Posted by: wimbi | Jan 26, 2006 1:54:17 PM
Have any studies similair to this been done for bio-diesel?
Posted by: Some Guy | Jan 26, 2006 1:54:28 PM
Assuming the best case of 15% savings, this is equivalent to increasing the gas mileage of a 20mpg car to 23.5 mpg. And I am not sure that this considers any decreases in mileage that may occur from using ethanol.
This is why we need to not be deluded into thinking that we solve the oil and ghg problem by converting to ethanol. It helps a bit but real progress will occur when we significantly increase the average mpg to the entire fleet. GM is emphasizing their efforts in the ethanol area in an attempt to cover up their pathetic progress with respect to their CAFE.
Posted by: t | Jan 26, 2006 2:44:24 PM
FINALLY, a reputable source has set the record straight!
Considering the 15% reduction in petroleum is essentially the worst case scenario, this seems to be a very viable option to help offset our petroleum consumption in the near future.
We need to do everything to encourage the production of flex-fuel vehicles right now, so that about the time there are enough of them on the road to make an impact, a higher percentage of ethanol will inevitably be coming from the much more efficient cellulosic methods. The market will dictate that even if the government doesn't.
It's not going to solve the problem, but it'll help.
Posted by: Angelo | Jan 26, 2006 3:58:48 PM
Cellulosic ethanol with 5X Net Energy Value is certanly more interesting than corn/grain ethanol and should be favoured. The 15% net gain with corn ethanol makes it hard to sell. Why use good corn or other edible grains to run our gas/ethanol guzzlers if we can use waste and other less useful stocks? The choice seems to be an easy one to make. Of course, the corn and grain lobbies will put up the usual fight and probably win.
Posted by: Harvey D | Jan 26, 2006 4:28:29 PM
Finally, a study that makes some logical conclusions:
1. Converting food to fuel is at best marginal.
2. Converting waste to fuel is a great solution!
Posted by: An Engineer | Jan 26, 2006 4:46:59 PM
So this study shows us that ethanol is worthwhile if we burn it in a automobile...then the next question is how can we do even better. Well the answer to that has been discovered by long time ethanol research Dr. Lanny Schmidt. Call it the last mile on the quest of ethanol...that last mile that turns it into hydrogen.
"Ethanol is easy to transport and, as Schmidt puts it, "relatively nontoxic." It's already burned in car engines, but it would yield nearly three times as much power if its energy were channeled into hydrogen fuel cells instead.
"We can potentially capture 50 percent of the energy stored in sugar by the corn plant, whereas converting the sugar to ethanol and burning the ethanol in a car harvests only 20 percent of the energy in sugar," says Schmidt.
The difference is largely due to the fact that the last thing you would want to do is put water in your gas tank, says Gregg Deluga, a coinventor of the reactor and a scientist who formerly worked in Schmidt's lab. The fermentation reactions that produce ethanol take place in water, and removing every last drop of water from a batch of ethanol takes plenty of energy. But the Schmidt reactor doesn't require that water and ethanol be separated. In fact, the reaction strips hydrogen from molecules of water as well as from ethanol, yielding a hydrogen bonus. "
You can read more about Lanny Schmidt's work here...
http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage1774.html
My good friend Senator Barak Obama has worked hard to bring this last mile to Chicago...with an ethanol to hydrogen fueling station. The fuel can be transported the same as fuel is today...and then converted efficiently to hydrogen using a process like Dr. Lanny Schmidt describes above.
You can read about the ethanol to hydrogen fuel station here...
http://www.aiada.org/article.asp?id=38822
Posted by: George Bush | Jan 26, 2006 5:17:15 PM
Very true, but keep in mind that much like consumers cannot choose between domestic and imported petroleum, they will not be able to choose between corn-based and cellulosic ethanol.
Regardless of the marginal impact of corn ethanol, we should only encourage it. That's the only way consumers are going to buy into this right now. We need this so that flex-fuel vehicles start becoming the norm. The increased demand will necessitate increases in cellusosic ethanol to meet that demand. Corn ethanol just won't do that.
We currently have excess production capacity of corn as a food source, so the corn ethanol isn't really taking anything away at this point.
Changes aren't going to happen overnight, so we need to start the ball rolling now. Most current hybrids only reduce oil consumption about 15%, and that's for less than 1% of the cars on the road right now! Given the limited modifications required to run on 85% ethanol, that could very quickly account for a significant portion of our cars. That doesn't even consider the 10% that nearly every car in America could run on right now.
Posted by: Angelo | Jan 26, 2006 5:23:58 PM
Regarding the research by Dr. Lanny Schmidt.....
The conversion of ethanol into hydrogen makes a lot of sense. However, wouldn't it make much more sense to place larger-scale fuel cells right at the ethanol factories, and just transport the electricity instead of the hydrogen?
This seems like it could complement Plug-in hybrids very well.....
Posted by: Angelo | Jan 26, 2006 5:30:00 PM
Electricity on the wire must be consumed at the time of production to be usual. Batteries are much to costly to save up energy that way. Ethanol and hydrogen of course can be stored indefintely without giving up any of it's energy. This means you don't have to build your electrical infrastructure to be so enormous to cover the peak demand...and have it go to waste during off peak. This lets you produce the energy and use it independently of production very efficiently. In addition, plug-ins will do little to stop pollution on our highways. Once folks turn on the heaters and the air conditioners while sitting idle in traffic...that battery charge will go quick...leaving the vehicle to run on gasoline for the remainder of the time. During this period it will continue to emit harmful emmissions just as our vehicles do today. With hydrogen vehicles, however, be they hydrogen internal combustion engines, hydrogen hybrids (plug-in or otherwise), or fuel cell vehicles the emmissions will be almost nil.
Posted by: Dick Cheney | Jan 26, 2006 5:46:34 PM
The problem with corn-based ethanol is that, at least for now, it is more expensive to run your car on ethanol than on gasoline, due to its lower energy density. Increasing fossil fuel prices will presumably also translate into parallel increases in ethanol prices, due to the increased cost of growing, refining and transporting it. It sounds like cellulosic ethanol may be a different matter, but it seems to me that the pure economics of the current ethanol realities will not drive the market to large scale adoption. If I have a flex-fuel car, and it costs me more to drive 100 miles on ethanol than it does to drive on gasoline, I'm going to buy gasoline. The exceptional consumer altruists out there who will pay more for fuel for the sake of a marginal benifit to the planet are too few in number to change this basic economic fact.
The real solutions lie in changing how we use energy to get around, i.e. mass transit, denser housing patterns, bicycles, *much* higher mileage vehicles, etc.
Posted by: Nick | Jan 26, 2006 5:48:08 PM
Also keep in mind that the lower energy density can be partially offset by an engine truly optimized to run on ethanol. Existing FFVs only make minor adjustments. Saab's Ecopower concept takes advantage of ethanol's significant higher octane rating. Much higher compression ratios can be used to take advantage of this increased octane, making the engine more efficient. In turn, Saab's concept could be applied to a smaller engine to make the same power as a larger gasoline engine. This would make the overal fuel consumption very close.
Posted by: Angelo | Jan 26, 2006 6:04:01 PM
"Batteries are much to costly to save up energy that way"
Not sure what types of batteries you are referring to (to treat all equally does not make sense) or what you are benchmarking this against. If it's fuel-cells, I fail to understand your reasoning. Many theoretical ideas need to come to fruition before these are affordable, whereas efficient battery technology is being developed right now. Check out a123systems.com
Also, near-term PHEVs would be most likely charged during off-peak hours. Additionally, electricity is bought wholesale. If this concept is as efficient as you advertise, it will be very competitve from a cost perspective, and thus it would be the fossil fuel plants that might have to cut back on their production. Sounds like a win-win scenario to me.
There is NO WAY that using a liquid, transported primarily by trucks, is a more efficient energy carrier than using our existing electical grid.
Posted by: Angelo | Jan 26, 2006 6:16:30 PM
As stated by my esteemed colleage Mr. Cheney, there is no decent means by which to buffer thousands of megawatts of energy within our existing electric infrastructure. A123 Systems will make nice batteries for electric drills for sure...but they will not be buffering thousands of megawatts of energy. If everyone switched to plug-in hybrids there would no doubt need to be an increase in the current electrical infrastructure of at least 25%. That's a heck of a lot of new coal plants, oil plants, and nuclear plants.
Ethanol can be produced, however, even utilizing various forms of intermittent energy like solar and once in the form of ethanol it will stay that way indefinitely rain or shine or whether there is a power outage or whether we are at peak power consumption or not. This allows it to act as a buffer between the act of supplying power for production and the consumption of the resource. This allows supply and demand to be leveled out efficiently, so you don't need to size things based upon the most you might use at any one point in time, but instead by what you would use on average (a much much lower number).
This allows you to utilize your capital resources much more efficiently.
Posted by: Barak Obama | Jan 26, 2006 7:06:42 PM
Did I miss something?
Several comments stated that using ethonal reduced oil consumption by "at best 15%". That's not what this article says. The article stated that "(the) reduction in greenhouse gases derived by using corn ethanol as a fuel is...10% to 15%."
Posted by: Your very own mother | Jan 26, 2006 11:01:05 PM
No, you are correct. The author boldly stated, "production of ethanol from corn uses less petroleum energy than the production of gasoline" in his first sentence. However, he implied the GHG benefits were less significant, and quoted that figure of 10-15%
So, for the sake of the argument, I was quoting what I assumed to be the worst case scenario for the petroleum savings.
Posted by: Angelo | Jan 27, 2006 3:49:37 AM
Mr. Cheney, I think it's becoming painfully obvious that once again, you are speaking on behalf of the big oil companies that have you in their back pockets, as they are better situated to become the power brokers of this new hydrogen infrastructure.
ANY committment to building such will mean a committment to cars that run on hydrogen. This ethanol to hydrogen solution you proposed won't come close to meeting demand, so most of the hydrogen will come from fossil fuel sources in the immediate future.
The point, that you somehow missed, is that PHEVs offer a solution RIGHT NOW. Most likely not the ultimate solution, but one that can nonetheless be significant.
Are you suggesting that our current electrical grid is not equipped to meet fluctuations in power demand? If you average our daily electrical consumption, we have plenty of total capacity to accomodate a significant number of PHEVs. The problem is that there is not enough of a market during these off-peak hours, creating significant surplus production capacity. In the near future, nearly all PHEVs would be charged overnight.
...and the battery technologies SUCH AS the one A123 systems has developed are being developed for automobile applications as well. We are not getting rid of the ICE anytime soon, so we'll have to find a way to make this system more efficient.
Posted by: Angelo | Jan 27, 2006 4:07:53 AM
Let me be clear though - I'm not knocking this proposal from Dr. Schmidt. I'm saying that if it really is as good as advertised, lets not make it dependent on a market for hydrogen or fuel cells which are farther down the road. Even without PHEVs, we are going to need to add capacity to our electrical grid. It sounds like this could contribute right away. Down the road, if it was determined that the hydrogen could be distributed more efficiently, the production would be ready.
Posted by: Angelo | Jan 27, 2006 4:34:49 AM
One poster said, "PHEVs offer a solution RIGHT NOW." This is simply not true. The storage technologies are not there, and it requires about a trillion dollars worth of new generation and distribution infrastructure.
Meanwhile, iron phosphate cathode lithium ion batteries are achieving high energy densities (competitive with the best hydrogen storage technologies), low cost (better than hydrogen), fast recharge (around five minutes), and can use existing infrastructure, namely the wall outlet in everyone's home.
And if you want high energy density, use ethanol or gasoline (liquid at room temperature, easy to store, use existing distribution infrastructure) in a solid oxide fuel cell (already in production vehicles, dropping rapidly in manufacturing cost).
How do you propose to overcome these difficulties and competitors?
[q->t to email]
Posted by: Adam | Jan 27, 2006 6:25:56 AM
Right PHEV is not here. What is really here is ethanol to hydrogen and hydrogen internal combustion engines (including hydrogen internal combustion engine hybrids). Lots of folks are working on converting existing Toyota Prius's to run on hydrogen including Energy Conversion Devices and Quantum Technologies among others.
Here's someone doing ethanol to hydrogen...today...
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=42444
Posted by: Richard Branson | Jan 27, 2006 7:09:15 AM
What was that you were saying about converted hydrogen Toyota Prius's?
Here's a few rolling out:
http://www.evworld.com/rssnews.cfm?section=communique&rssid=10836
Posted by: Tom Toyota | Jan 27, 2006 7:11:07 AM
Speaking of hydrogen internal combustion...don't forget about that which is also here "now" from Mazda. Mazda has begun to lease the dual fuel capable hydrogen/gasoline RX8 and they have plans by 2008 to introduce a production version of a dual fuel capable hydrogen/gasoline hybrid Premacy mini-van.
"Finally, Mazda continues its push to developing a hydrogen-fueled rotary combustion engine for a mass production vehicle. Imaki affirmed that Mazda will begin leasing its RX-8 RE hydrogen cars (earlier post) starting next spring, a half-year earlier than planned.
Imaki also said that the company intends to offer the Premacy RE hydrogen hybrid concept vehicle, which combines the dual-fuel, hydrogen/gasoline RENESIS rotary engine with a Mazda mild hybrid system (earlier post) as a mass production vehicle within three years"
Here's the story on GCC...
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/10/mazda_to_focus_.html
Posted by: Mary Mazda | Jan 27, 2006 7:34:22 AM
Don't forget about my home town friends here in Madison that are able to more directly convert biomass to hydrogen and other alkanes bypassing the ethanol step.
http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage4406.html
Posted by: Dolly Madison | Jan 27, 2006 7:36:31 AM
Where is it documented that hydrogen can be stored indefinitely? My understanding is that one of the "challenges" with respect to hydrogen is that, because of its low density, that there will always be leakage regardless of the container.
Posted by: t | Jan 27, 2006 8:12:29 AM
These studies seem to have forgotten a pilot technology mentioned right here in GCC. A nebraska facility will power an ethanol plant with sewage methane, derived from feedlot manure. Undigested sewage is nitrogen rich, qualifying as substitute corn fertilizer. No petroleum used at all. Since feedlot methane is essentially a stranded fuel evaporating into the air, you can consider this a net increase of fuel stock.
Also: Ethanol and the hydrogen economy are NOT really two diffent things. You can heat ethanol or methanol anaerobically to release hydrogen, if you needed pure hydrogen badly enough.
Posted by: jimcrack | Jan 27, 2006 9:18:46 AM
Oh my...no hydrogen contained in a sealed gaseous vessel does not leak. That is the fodder of those shilling out a propaganda campaign. You should question very deeply the source where you heard that lie. Hydrogen is produced in massive quantities all over the world today. 45 billion kilograms or enough to fuel 250 million fuel cell vehicles (per the Air Products web site).
http://www.airproducts.com/Products/LiquidBulkGases/HydrogenEnergyFuelCells/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.htm
Like any fuel...it needs to be contained in an appropriate storage vessel. Gaseous hydrogen storage vessel simply do not leak.
Posted by: Dolly Madison | Jan 27, 2006 9:51:35 AM
Nice to see GCC has weighed in showing the advantage of Virent Technologies biomass to hydrogen conversion techique. This is hardly to discount the validity of ethanol to hydrogen, but it does show that APR is even more efficient.
The key to understanding why even ethanol to hydrogen is still a good idea is realizing that hydrogen is not the end game. They game is to achieive miles on the road. A fuel cell vehicle running on hydrogen can achieve those miles on the road 2-3 times more efficiently than a vehicle running on ethanol internal combustion. Not to mention it does so while emitting zero green house gases and most importantly zero harmful pollutants.
Here's the new GCC post on Virent...
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/01/successful_star.html#more
Posted by: Dolly Madison | Jan 27, 2006 9:57:21 AM
jimcrack:
Those technologies relying on offal or waste are functional and efficient -- but in general don't scale. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be persued, but that their costs don't accurately "speak for" the costs necessary to meet a wide-scale demand.
Posted by: stomv | Jan 28, 2006 6:58:12 AM
My mistake... I was under the impression above that H in PHEV was related to hydrogen, but it's plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. With the batteries I mentioned on their way into production, PHEVs will be kicking hydrogen's butt in the next 2-3 years, with the last nails going in that coffin when the plunging costs of solid oxide fuel cells make their efficiency gains vs. ICEs worth their higher cost.
But that's what I said above. :-)
[q->t to email]
Posted by: Adam | Jan 30, 2006 12:54:27 PM
Adam, glad you finally agreed with me. This board can be brutal at times!
I find it odd that so many people are supporting the hydrogen ICE concept, to go along with this new sugars-to-hydrogen proposal. Perhaps people didn't read down to the paragraph about the 80 mile range! All the efficiency in that process is gained in production, not distribution. If we even try to sell people on that concept, they'll never buy it. 80 mile range....
Forcing hydrogen ICE's to the market just to get this sugars-to-hydrogen process to the market is not wise at all. Instead, as I proposed earlier, bring it to the market right now, but turn it into electricity using existing technology (and eventually, fuel cells). There is quite a market for electricity right now. WHEN there is a market for the hydrogen, some or all of these plants could just start distributing the hydrogen. It's as simple as that.
Some guy was knocking the inability to store large amounts of electricity. A couple things - one, there are plenty of generating plants that can vary their output, to balance out the overall grid (and conveniently, most of those are the dirtier fossil-fuel driven ones). Second, people's CARS (PHEVs) collectively serve as additional electrical energy storage. Third, how the hell do we start stockpiling these excess reserves of hydrogen? For that matter, how much refined gasoline does this person think we now have stockpiled? (PLEASE don't get gasoline confused with our Strategic Petroleum Reserve)
Posted by: Angelo | Jan 31, 2006 4:57:07 AM
For example, here is a realistic near term solution we could strive for:
1. Plug-in Diesel hybrids that can run on any percentage of biodiesel.
2. Finding more efficient ways to produce biodiesel. This can be accomplished through more efficient farming methods and/or by finding a source with higher yields than soybeans (and many exist that do)
3. Biodiesel waste, the cellulose from the soybeans (or whatever stock is used for the biodiesel) is used for this sugars-to-hydrogen process, and turned into electricity to supplement the grid.
4. Applying the Fischer-Tropsch process to turn sewage and animal waste into diesel.
5. Increased production of tradtional diesel to make better use of the petroleum we have.
6. Additional sugars-to-hydrogen plants using other sorts of cellulose. Primarliy waste, but supplemented by surplus food-source production.
7. Ramping up renewable energy production such as wind (which already is as cheap as coal), solor, geothermal, and others (such as the new hydro proposals that capture wave energy or run underwater turbines to take advantage of currents) to supplement peak energy demands that the PHEVs will hopefully result in over time.
What are we left with after 10 years of investment? Plenty of vehicles on the road that are primarily driven by electric components (drivetrain and accessories). These would be MUCH easier to convert into fuel-cell vehicles if advances were made there (as most components could be reused, and from above, these suger-to-hydrogen plants would be in place). If battery technology progressed to the point where rapid recharges in the 5 minute range were possible (and this is already here, by the way), we could start building towards pure electric. All the while, our foreign oil dependence was drastically reduced.
Oh, I'm ready for people to pick this apart, but anything can be picked apart if you look close enough. A concept such as this could be put into place. If one of our leaders had such a vision, he could sell the American public on an idea, much the same way Kennedy set our sights on going to the moon. A vision of energy independence is no less grand.
Posted by: Angelo | Jan 31, 2006 5:22:30 AM
Converting ethanol to hydrogen is about the dumbest idea I've seen. It means not using the solar energy stored in the carbon.
Posted by: tom deplume | Jan 31, 2006 10:53:02 AM
If you are referring to what I wrote, the idea is to BYPASS ETHANOL ENTIRELY, which is what the sugar-to-hydrogen process accomplishes. All the data I've seen suggests it's far more efficient than using ethanol as the energy carrier.
Posted by: Angelo | Jan 31, 2006 12:57:44 PM
Ethanol is still a hydrocarbon - with accompanying air quality problems. This will be an okay short-term measure, but we need a focused effort toward photovoltaic PHEVs for a goal of zero emissions. PV will help to bypass hydrocarbon fuels.
Posted by: Scott Kruse | Jan 31, 2006 1:01:59 PM
One post I read in this thread stated that right now it is cheaper to drive 100 miles on gasoline than it is to drive on ethanol, and the real solution lay in mass transit denser housing population etc. Well, in response, mass transit vehicles require fuel to operate
as well. These are to seperate issues from within that need to be tackled seperately. Back to ethanol, I cannot imagine that it would be cheaper to transport gas to the United States from other countries, at least in the long run. You would create jobs out the wazoo
within the US, and reduce foreign dependency
Posted by: Roy | Feb 5, 2006 9:48:40 AM
A good solution would be to develop more wind energy to the grid system for plug in vehicles. Another way would be to use hydrogen-oxygen gas from an on board generator fed straight to the engine via the air intake, a system that has already been developed and proven to increase mpg and reduce pollutants. Burning of ethanol will save little energy but at the same time increase the carbon dioxide burden. The promotion of ethanol means the development of an artificial energy industry which is bound to fail in the long run.
adrianakau@aol.com
Posted by: Adrian Akau | Feb 8, 2006 10:22:53 AM
While I'm sure that this study included some calculation for value from the distillers grains left from the fermintation process, how much is not clear to me from a quick reading. One of the largest problems facing current (summer of '06) large producers of ethanol, is how to get rid of the left-overs, i.e., the distillers grains and solubles. Using it in animal feed is great, but the fact is, at the present time, we are producing much more of these products than can be consumed, using this method. If we are going to increase ethanol production by X times, whatever that number is, how are we going to use the increased volume of by-products? If this comparison study allocated some economic benefit in their spread-sheet for the by-products, and in the end we generate so much of these products that we can't use them, then is there any 'real' value to these products? Large current producers are trying to use more and more of these by-products in animal feed, and are still not using it all up. How are we going to use all the extra stuff from future production?
JK
Posted by: John Kirkpatrick | Jul 18, 2006 11:46:26 AM
If you have a car that runs on corn then why arnt we make other engey sources run of the corn to other fueled thing?
Posted by: Shelly | May 1, 2007 6:26:18 AM
Why are they saying it will make are world better ans yes i belive it will but what about the chemicals in the corn? Could that be a harm to our air supply? <3 shelly webster
Posted by: shelly | May 2, 2007 6:45:19 AM
Why are they saying it will make are world better ans yes i belive it will but what about the chemicals in the corn? Could that be a harm to our air supply? <3 shelly webster
Posted by: shelly | May 2, 2007 6:45:20 AM
What is the current situation on research done about the use of lignocellulose for ethanol production. how soon will this technology be available for commercial production of ethanol
Posted by: Aishatu Dambam | May 4, 2007 10:58:14 AM
Ethanol is way better (enviormenyally)than gasoline duh!!
Posted by: | Oct 12, 2007 3:07:00 PM
yiyu sd jfadshkjhfjashdjhfasjhfhdashfjahjfdhajh
Posted by: | Oct 28, 2007 2:43:05 PM
Dear sir ,
Would you like to exchange links with "http://www.classiccarbase.com/avanti.html" website?
If so send your site title ,URL, description or html code.
You can use the html code to first place a link on your site .if you have any problems please let me know.
html code:
Avanti Cars United States
Avanti car models are Avanti Avanti II 1965 United States.
kind regards
Webmaster
Posted by: webmaster | Jan 18, 2008 1:50:28 AM
A conversion to ethanol will be disasterous for the world. Farmers will gladly switch to growing corn in order to satisfy the insatiable need for ethanol. Food prices are rising fast and will go much higher. Milk and cheese prices have gone up 20% and so is the price of eggs and chicken. Rice is rising 30% and there are shortages. Every food product is already getting more expensive. What will happen when crops fail due to weather variations causing periodic drought or flooding? Prices will rise and there will be scarcity of food and fuel! The poorest people of the world will be hit the hardest. Fat Americans can still sit around and stuff their faces with pizza and burgers even if the prices double. But if you are poor and living in Mexico, Latin America, Africa or Asia, the doubling of food prices leads to starvation and malnutrition. And what about the environment? Growing more food will lead to more fertilizers being used and doubling or tripling of nutrients into our rivers, lakes and streams which will KILL them. Do you people know anything about the world or the environment? You endeavor to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but even the UN has said that even if we reduce to the 1990 levels of C02 emissions, we will have no effect on global warming. So you are willing to endanger the lives of hundreds of millions of people to have NO effect on global warming. That is criminal. You environemtalists are the problem. If the United States had been building nuclear power for the past 40 years, we would all be driving electric cars today, we would be energy independent and the environment would be cleaner. But you oppose all progress and come up with solutions that don't solve problems, instead they create more.
Posted by: Mick Taylor | Mar 28, 2008 1:16:30 PM
