Rafael:

That's why I said "stickler" -- you are correct in that the differences between actual performance and your 75% rule-of-thumb are not that substantial, all told. I was just being ornery. All the same, the rule of thumb was meant for consumers, not policy makers. If your FFV gets 80% as good mileage on E85 compared to gas, by all means buy ethanol when it is merely 20% cheaper than regular gas instead of 25%. It becomes relatively small potatoes at that point.

On the second issue, the EPA numbers than I'm mentioning are the volumetric MPG figures quoted at www.fueleconomy.gov. They list the straight up city/hwy MPG figures for each make and model of car on the US market, and when there is a model available as an FFV, they give the volumetric fuel economy when the vehicle is run on regular gas and a separate set of numbers for when it is run on E85. The gas numbers are always equivalent to the gasoline numbers for non-FFV versions of the same model/engine configuration, proving that the engines are currently optimized for gasoline and not ethanol. For instance, the Ford F-150 5.4L V8 comes in FFV-capable and non-FFV-capable versions, and each one gets 14/19 MPG when running gas. The FFV gets 11/14 on E85. It's very straighforward miles per gallon of gas (city/hwy) and miles per gallon of E85 (city/hwy).

Of course, these are city/hwy numbers derived using the EPA test cycle, which is often criticized for being somewhat unrealistic -- though I tend to hit those numbers easily when driving moderately and sensibly. These certainly aren't the numbers used to calculate CAFE, which you rightly point out are highly and unrealistically massaged. While I think that it is not a bad idea to offer an incentive to get automakers to spend the extra few hundred dollars on including FFV capability in their new cars, doing so in such a deceptive manner leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.

Rafael:

You have included an estimate of the oil required to produce gasoline, considering, I assume, the fact, that the number of gallons of finished product from oil is actually greater than the total input of 42 gallons due to expansion.

Technically, of course, if you are computing relative impacts on greenhouse gases, you have to consider the mix of fuels required to produce ethanol, including those instances in which coal is used in the distilling process. This makes the analysis much more complex, but may result in a higher ghg footprint from ethanol due to the higher carbon content of coal. Of course, natural gas has a lower footprint, so that would counterbalance the coal somewhat.

To be fair, as well, one needs to consider the destructive environmental impacts of corn production. The massive losses of soil, for example, are well documented.

And, of course, the piper will eventually be paid in higher food prices. Tack that cost on to the price of ethanol.

For several years in a row, now, we have experienced a worldwide deficit in grain production. There isn't any new green revolution on the horizon that would appear to be able to reverse this trend. Throw in some drowth, global warming, and the usual increases in population, and things do not look good for the world's people.

I am conflicted, though, since we may have finally reached that state predicted by Thomas Malthus. Something has to give. I suspect that a higher death rate may impose its own "solution". More corn available for the world's people may just mean we postpone the inevitable die off.

Regardless of how this all plays out, we can't come even close to satisfying our fuel needs with ethanol or biodiesel as noted in the most recent study from University of Minnesota. Also, of course, GM and Ford, for example, know full well that the vast majority of their vehicles will never experience one drop of E85 in their lifetimes.

In a perfect world, from my perspective, we would tax all externalities and would tax all carbon, thus providing a proxy for a determination by the consumer whether it makes sense to use ethanol. Until that day comes in never, never land, we will be left with conflicting studies about the EROEI of ethanol. You're .85 number may very well be the right one, but then Pimental could still be correct that the EROEI is negative.

You rightly point out, however, that the best course of action is to buy the most efficient fuel vehicle practicable. Unfortunately, with all the propoganda, there will be a bunch of big ass truck owners driving their FFVs down the road thinking they are doing the environment and our national security a favor. Not!!

I know I've gone far afield here, but I think the message needs to be that the world needs to cut back in its voracious appetite, not just for fuel, but for everything, including children. The push for ethanol, especially by the U.S. administration, is a desperate attempt to postpone the inevitable -- either voluntary or forced reductions in consumption. The soft and prudent path would be a reasoned and gradual voluntary reduction so we can reach some kind of sustainable equilibrium.

Just once Id love to hear out of the mouths of the heads of GM and ADM the word BIODIESEL. Its not like theyve never heard the word...they sell huge quantities of diesels or bioD in EU.

I find NBK-Boston's unfounded faith in ethanol... disturbing.

Corn (maize) farmers have been found testifying for fuel-price preferences so they can continue to supply ethanol feedstock.  If ethanol is going to save us from fossil-fuel dependency, why would its makers need preferences?  This proves that ethanol as made in the USA is just "laundered" fossil fuel, and has no merit as either a GHG reducer or a means of petroleum independence.

A large part of this is due to our use of ethanol to feed the same old inefficient engines we now run on petroleum.  The typical efficiency of these drivetrains is about 15%.  Most biofuels (including ethanol) incorporate less than 50% of their input energy, so the field-to-wheels efficiency can be assumed to be 7.5% or less.  We should look to improving that 7.5% figure.  For instance, suppose we switch from liquid fuels burned in Otto-cycle engines to solid carbon burned in direct-carbon fuel cells; biomass can be converted to charcoal at roughly 50% efficiency, and DCFC's can turn carbon into electricity at 80% efficiency.  That yields a field-to-wheels efficiency of 40%, more than five times as good as ethanol.

If you really want energy independence, you have to forget ethanol and vote against any captive of the ethanol lobby.  Sad, but true.

Engineer-Poet:

I wonder what you mean by "unfounded," and I also wonder at what you consider my level of "faith" to be in the potential of fuel alcohol. I think you overestimate it somewhat. And I also think you confound two important but separate issues -- the first being the value of biofuels in their ability to incorporate non-fossil solar energy into the industrial and automotive energy cycle, the second being the importance of improving our use of energy within the industrial/automotive cycle, no matter where it comes from.

I have never claimed that ethanol, especially corn-based conventional ethanol, will "save us from fossil fuel dependency." I have merely stated that conventional corn-based ethanol is not a bad deal all told, and that the prospect of alternative ethanol feedstocks (switchgrass, algae, woody waste, etc.) seems to hold real promise. It will reduce our fossil fuel dependency somewhat, but even cellulostic ethanol with not "save us" from fossil fuels.

I also don't know where you get the notion that corn-based ethanol incorporates "less than 50% of their input energy." In fact, I don't even know what that statement means. Do you mean to say that corn incorporates less than 50% of all input energy, counting anthropogenic fossil fuel energy inputs as well as incident solar energy that the corn plant fails to fully metabolize? If so, then so what?

I do know that apparently realistic and respectable studies have tallied, as far as they could, all the manmade fossil energy inputs used in corn production, from the cost of planting and growing the corn, through the cost of harvesting it and refining it -- and compared that input energy to the value of all the outputs of the ethanol production process, principally motor fuel and animal feed. The consensus seems to be that more energy value comes out of the process than goes into it, meaning that some net amount of sunlight has been captured by the system. The consensus is that a 20% gain is not an unreasonable estimate, but the exact amount is not critical for the purposes of this discussion. Here I am explicitly siding with the USDA, the Berkely group, and all the other researchers who reject Pimental's recurring claim that corn-ethanol is energy negative. I've read the research papers, and for now I'll just say that this how I feel about the matter.

Thus, for 100,000 BTUs worth of fossil fuel energy put into the system, something like 120,000 BTUs of useful products come out. By and large, that's better than giving up and settling for the mere 100,000 BTUs of fossil energy to begin with. The next question is how best to turn BTUs into useful things like transportation and, ultimately, human welfare and happiness, which is a distinct matter.

A fuel-cell type mechanism is doubtlessly more efficient than an Otto-cycle liquid fuel mechanism is for turning chemical potential energy into useful mechanical work. However, inexpensive and economically viable fuel cell engines appear to be beyond our reach at the moment.

I firmly advocate research on new prime-movers and drive systems, but I realize that progress on that front is rather slow. I also firmly believe that electric drive is the future of automobiles, but think that a more likely trajectory goes from a conventional car to a hybrid car (Prius-type) to a plug-in serial hybrid to a quick-charge EV, to possibly a fuel-cell plug-in serial hybrid -- first 30 miles each day on overnight grid power, long distance trips use a small, carbon-compatible fuel cell to top up the batteries, or a pit stop at a high-amp quick-charge station.

Before talking about all these new toys, the very first order of business is to encourage people to give up unnecessary gas guzzlers and live generally low-mileage lifestyles (I take the bus to work in the morning). That is, we have to cut inefficiency out of the automotive energy-use system by being better users of the technology we currently have (buying sensible cars and living lower-mileage lifestyles) and by developing newer and more efficient technologies.

And back to the first point -- we also have to ask ourselves where all the energy which we will be using (efficiently or not) will come from. Because progress in commercializing electric drive technologies is slow, for the next ten to fifteen years, we have to think about how to use non-fossil energy in our existing engines and engine technologies as best we can. Biofuels help with that. They take a certain amount of fossil energy input, return a higher amount of energy as output (by incorporating solar energy) and they run in the car I have right now, and in the small, more efficient car I plan on buying next -- at least at concentrations of up to E10.

Part of what frustrates many observers about the current FFV scenario is that automakers tend to place them only on their largest and least efficient vehicles. That creates a certain amount of perversity. It's actually better to downsize away from a Ford F-150 5.4L V8 than it is to run that monster on E85, but with all the hype out there the average motorist might not know it. Of course, if you really can't do without a rig of that size, then it's generally better to use E85 than straight gasoline, but that is not nearly as good as the first option. Pretending that E85 -- especially under current conditions -- as as good as trading an F-150 in for a Focus is lunacy.

And the ethanol lobby. Why does/did ethanol require a $0.50 tax break? In the past, it needed support because oil cost $15 a barrel and gasoline cost $0.98 a gallon. I remember those days. Its technology and economies of scale were somewhat less developed. It was still in development as a fuel source. Today, ethanol doesn't really need a tax break. Oil is $75 a barrel, gasoline is $3.00 a gallon, and ethanol trades on the spot market for almost $4.00 a gallon. But if you're getting free money from the government, you aren't simply going to give it back without a fight, are you? The only theoretical reason to give ethanol an artifical boost is to smooth any expected FFV transition from gasoline optimization to E85 optimization. But that's besides the point in the current context, where most ethanol goes to E10 blending, and current market conditions support ethanol quite well without outside help. This is, by the way, separate from the notion that we should tax gasoline enough to reflect all the externalities we can reasonably assign to its use. We would also tax ethanol for its externalities, whatever they are, under such a proposal, though gasoline would likely be taxed far more than ethanol, because it probably creates far more negative externalities, giving the latter something of a price advantage.

So -- save the world through ethanol and ethanol alone? Hardly. Do I consider corn-ethanol to be a positive step, rather than a negative one? Yes. Do I think that ethanol has expanded future potential through the use of new feedstocks? Yes. Do I consider ethanol an important tool in our endeavor to curb the environmental, economic and social costs of modern motoring? Certainly -- it is one of many such tools.

I have merely stated that conventional corn-based ethanol is not a bad deal

Except it is a bad deal.  We subsidize ethanol to the tune of 51¢/gallon, in addition to agricultural subsidies.  If only 20% of that gallon is energy not present in the fossil inputs, that's $3.06/gallon subsidy for the ethanol created (on top of the considerable cost); on a gasoline-equivalent basis, it's closer to $4.50/gallon.  That deal sucks!

the prospect of alternative ethanol feedstocks (switchgrass, algae, woody waste, etc.) seems to hold real promise.

Nope, you're still thinking inside the box.  Suppose you can realize the Billion Ton Vision.  Current technology can get something like 330 liters (87 gallons) of ethanol per ton of biomass.  That would yield 87 billion gallons of ethanol per year, equivalent to about 58 billion gallons of gasoline.  That's not even half of US gasoline consumption, let alone diesel and other products.  What were they promising?  If it was anything like an end to imports, it was a lie.

even cellulostic ethanol with not "save us" from fossil fuels.

Exactly.  So why name it as a "solution", or even desirable?  We need things which do far more per ton, if they use biomass at all.  We can do this, but it means abandoning the model of liquid fuels burned in internal combustion engines.

I also don't know where you get the notion that corn-based ethanol incorporates "less than 50% of their input energy." In fact, I don't even know what that statement means.

Try reading Ethanol Mirage II.

The arithmetic is very simple:  you can get about 392,000 BTU if you burn a bushel of corn.  But if you ferment the corn to get 2.66 gallons of ethanol and use another 88,000 BTU of heat to distill it, you'll get about 208,000 BTU of ethanol (at 78,000 BTU/gallon) out of that bushel.  That's 480,000 BTU in for 208,000 BTU out, or considerably less than 50%.  In short, if you do grow the corn, making ethanol out of it is energetically idiotic.

The consensus seems to be that more energy value comes out of the process than goes into it, meaning that some net amount of sunlight has been captured by the system.

Yes, some trivial amount is captured.  This is used to justify an out-of-control subsidy regime, but is otherwise of little benefit to either the taxpayer or the environment.  To the extent that it is used to promote the E85 guzzler loophole, it is a liability to both.

Today, ethanol doesn't really need a tax break.

With anhydrous ammonia topping $500/ton and other crop inputs rising steeply, it appears that it still does.

Ethanol is not an answer to fossil fuels.  Concentrating on it is one of the most self-defeating things we can do.  The billion-ton vision would make 87 billion gallons of ethanol, creating about 6.8 quads of raw fuel and producing about 1 quad of energy when burned in engines.  In contrast, a billion tons of biomass turned into 300 million tons of charcoal to be consumed by direct-carbon fuel cells would yield about 6.8 quads of electric output.  You'd also have the byproduct gas from carbonization to use as fuel or chemical feedstock, and the CO2 from the fuel cells could be fed to any of the various schemes for feeding algae from powerplant exhaust.  On top of this, the whole system would be carbon-neutral at worst.

We can't afford illusions about anything at the moment, but especially not about ethanol.

1. Ethanol typically less than $2.00 per gallon to produce -- before the ethanol tax credit. It currently sells at up to $4.00 on the spot market -- longer term, at around $2.50/gal. It no longer needs a subsidy. I agree that the subsidy should be eliminated, or allowed to finally die (or at least be phased out on a sensible schedule) when it comes up at the end of 2007. At the same time, tax rates on other fuels should be adjusted to properly reflect externalities, which would then harness the market to select for the best fuel option. How much of that dream comes true is an open question.

2. You can't burn corn in a car. Until our road vehicles run on something other than liquid fuels, we need something that can be stuck in a gas tank. We have millions of cars on the road, burning liquid fuels, which will still be there in five years time. There are thousands more rolling out of factories every day. Replacing them all at once is impossible. In fits and start, progress away from liquid fuels is being made, but slowly. Talking about the heating value of corn when burned in place of firewood is largely besides the point -- though I at least now know where your 50% number comes from.

3. Direct carbon fuel cells are still a ways off, especially for mobile applications. Moreover, if you run them on biomass (instead of the more typcially proposed coal), you still have to grow the biomass, burn it into charcoal, and distribute it. Those processes are not currently carbon neutral -- much in the way that processes ancillary to ethanol production are not carbon neutral. The feedstocks are subject to the same crop-input price fluctuations that ethanol is. Greater fluctuations if you use corn as a feedstock, probably smaller ones if you use something like switchgrass. Stating that the whole system "is carbon neutral at worst" is untenable.

4. Displacing half our current gasoline production actually *is* something close to an "end to imports," even though I never put that outcome on the table. We currently import something like 50% to 60% of our petroleum. Displacing half our gasoline take us most (but not all) of the way to eliminating imports -- but that's something of a mirage. By the time we can produce ethanol in those quantities, our consumption will have gone up further, while our production will have also gone down further -- at least when you extrapolate current trends. But if we use existing liquid fuel technologies to their best potential (basically, stop buying SUVs), we can arrest consumption growth quite quickly, making serious import displacement a real possibility.

Why do I think ethanol is a good idea? Because it appears likely to help us transition away from petroleum transportation fuels and towards a more sustainable future. I don't think it will be the universal fuel of the future, much like gasoline is today, nor do I think we will begin to produce 20 million barrels of it a day, or do so for the indefinite future. But I think ethanol has the potential to reduce air pollution, CO2 emissions and fuel imports, and do so competitively and in the near future. That's why I'm not hostile to it, and welcome its use.

You are right that we cannot afford illusions right now. But I say that we cannot afford illusions about how quickly and efficiently we can bring far-off technologies -- and their fuel sources -- into wide-scale production and use. We can least afford to ignore partial solutions that are within our grasp while and instead spend all our energies on ultimate solutions that are always around a few more corners. We'll likely run out of gas or burn up the planet before we get there.

5. When you burn corn, you don't get to use leftover byproducts for animal feed. Ignoring the value of this is either slipshod accounting or just plain fraud. "Ethanol Mirage II," which you cite, does not account for this value -- and notes that in a disclaimer. But that amounts to admitting that their numbers are meaningless. It's like refining a barrel of crude and counting the kerosene but ignoring the gasoline. Byproducts are a signficant part of the ethanol value stream. Until the day comes that we all go vegetarian, we have to feed our cows some form of food. Ethanol byproducts are high in fat and protein, and are valuable for this purpose. If we had to replace this source of animal feed, we'd have to spend time, energy and land growing more feed. The amount we save on that should be (and in most mainstream figures, is) accounted for in the numbers given for corn-ethanol. And if we ever *do* go vegetarian, the byproducts are still probably useful for extracting vegetable oil and protein for human purposes.

Without these byproducts, ethanol is not terribly efficient, and may indeed be a marginal or bad deal. But once you account for them, your claim that "50% of the energy value is lost" evaporates, and your conclusion that corn ethanol is a bad deal does not stand. I'll state that it isn't the blockbuster deal-of-the-century, and there are pretty severe limits to just how much more corn ethanol production capacity our current agriculture can support. But it is not a bad deal, and certainly does not deserve the vitriol that gets heaped upon it. Cellulostic alcohol seems like a downright good deal, even if -- again -- there are limits to how much of our current energy comsumption it can displace.

Nothing is more tedious than a "debater" who won't pay attention to anything, let alone contrary facts.  Case in point:

Ethanol typically less than $2.00 per gallon to produce -- before the ethanol tax credit.

I've read that corn is now heading for $4.50/bushel.  At 2.7 gallons/bushel, that's $1.67/gallon for the corn alone.  The latest I saw for the distillation heat required was about 34,000 BTU/gallon.  Natural gas is running what, $7.50/million BTU?  Distilling with gas would cost another $.25/gallon.  With just two of the inputs accounted for, that's already up to $1.92/gallon.  You still have to amortize the equipment, buy bio-inputs for the mashing and fermentation, pay for transport of grain and all products...

Ethanol from corn may have cost less than $2.00/gallon a few years ago.  The problem is that corn is essentially a fossil food itself because of all the necessary inputs, and its cost will rise along with oil and gas.

It no longer needs a subsidy.

Try getting rid of it now that it's a huge cash cow.

You can't burn corn in a car.

You can burn natural gas in a car, so use corn for heat and use the gas for auto fuel.  You obviously weren't paying attention to the analysis which proved your claim wrong.

Until our road vehicles run on something other than liquid fuels, we need something that can be stuck in a gas tank.

How is the promotion of a highly-subsidized liquid fuel going to bring about that change?

We already have a much cheaper energy source than gasoline.  It's even delivered to most people's homes already.  I'd like to see you make a case for ethanol preferences helping to move people to PHEV's, but it's enough of a stretch that I don't see you doing it.

Direct carbon fuel cells are still a ways off, especially for mobile applications.

You don't need mobile DCFC's as long as you have PHEV's.  The further advantage is that wind, solar, nuclear, etc. become "motor fuel" and directly offset carbon emissions.

It's arguable that you don't need DCFC's at all.  If you reduce ZnO to zinc using carbon, you get carbon monoxide as a byproduct.  The zinc runs zinc-air fuel cells (getting turned back into ZnO) while the CO is a perfectly good fuel or chemical feedstock.

Moreover, if you run them on biomass (instead of the more typcially proposed coal), you still have to grow the biomass, burn it into charcoal, and distribute it.

If you turn biomass into ethanol you have all the same burdens, PLUS the conversion step is an energy-loser instead of an energy source; carbonization yields a combustible gas which can be used as fuel or a source of chemicals.

Displacing half our current gasoline production actually *is* something close to an "end to imports," even though I never put that outcome on the table. We currently import something like 50% to 60% of our petroleum. Displacing half our gasoline take us most (but not all) of the way to eliminating imports...

WRONG.  And wrong on so many levels, summing them all up is serious work:

1. The US uses about 20 million bbl/day of oil, of which more than 60% is now imported after the hurricanes (link).
2. The US uses only about 9 million bbl/day of gasoline.  Displacing half of gasoline would catch something closer to 1/3 of imports.
3. It's worse than that, because the hypothetical 87 billion gallons of ethanol has energy equivalent to only 58 billion gallons of gasoline.  That's a hair over 40% of US gasoline use.
4. You make the implicit assumption that the entire production of ethanol is net, not gross; running the system needs non-zero energy input.
5. You allow no room for growth.

The real push needs to be towards efficiency and electricity, in that order.  Our current bunch of "alternative fuels" are just ways of funnelling money to parasitic political constituencies.

Why do I think ethanol is a good idea? Because it appears likely to help us transition away from petroleum transportation fuels and towards a more sustainable future.

You can't sustain a damn thing on it.  All it does is help maintain the status quo (and demand for petroleum).  If you have evidence to the contrary, POST IT!  All you've shown so far is wishful thinking and hand-waving.  The abiotic petroleum advocates have that too, and many other varieties of cranks besides.

I stumbled across your blog while I was doing some online research. With recent rising gas prices, it has really become critical that this type of technology become mainstream.

Political moves to control energy sources are frequently counterproductive. For instance, the move to eliminate coal and oil-fired power plants and use natural gas instead simply creates new problems.

Power plant use helped raise the price of natural gas to homeowners, who don't really have other viable choices for heating.

And isn't coal a "biomass"??? What possible rational reason is there for using corn, a foodstock, instead of coal (you even get to skip some processing steps)??

Substituting electricity, in whole or in part, for chemical fuel is always a BIG ENERGY LOSER!! Electricity must be transmitted from its source, and there are big losses in transmission. Storing it in batteries makes it even worse, due to the conversion loss (twice: once to charge, once to discharge) as well as the manufacturing and disposal costs of the batteries. And remember that electricity is just a power transmitting medium: it is NOT power. You must have an actual fuel to create the energy which is transmitted via electricity.

A more rational decision for power plants would have been to eliminate legal barriers to nuclear energy and, more importantly, implementation of breeder reactor technology in the U.S. Breeder technology makes nuclear fuel recycleable, eliminating the "nuclear waste problem". Nuclear electric plants eliminate the need for massive amounts of oil and gas, and make these resources available at a reasonable cost for users who are not able to use other fuels.

If you have a portfolio of properties Peacock Insurance can give you some considerable saving on your premium. Instead of insuring your properties individually you can add them to one policy with one common renewal date. The savings made can be huge with no difference in the cover you will receive. You can start the policy off and when your other polices fall due for renewal simply add them onto your policy. With Peacock you can also add other types of properties like shops and offices to the same policy and...