This is of course Argonne National Lab's we're talking about.
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/03/how-reliable-are-those-usda-ethanol.html

And from a Greenhouse perspective, this has certainly been canceling things out, in spades.
http://greyfalcon.net/time
http://greyfalcon.net/soy2

Much less this info
blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/01/23/more-bad-news-for-ethanol/
www.bioenergywiki.net/images/3/31/Searchinger_Response.pdf

I think these efficiency gains will be comforting to the millions who perish in the great famine of 2008.

The amount of heat energy and water used is still surprising. I would guess that with fermentation and distillation, this is about what it takes. I think it illustrates that we are at the maximum output that we should go with these techniques.

Are we being fooled?

"CO2 "capture" and processing as a co-product is on the rise a total of 23.5% of ethanol producers are capturing their carbon dioxide emissions for use in dry ice production and carbonated beverage bottling.""

I thought capture meant-keeping CO2 out of the atmosphere?
Dry ice and pop fizz will eventually release its CO2.
Yes, I know Bio fuels will eventually recapture with new growth.

David Ahlport

There are many respected scientist at Argonne, and it is widely considered a very reputable source.

Do you have an argument with their methodology?

It appears they are the enemy on this one as they reported increase efficiency in something you don't like.

While most agree that corn ethanol is not the final answer, most non-agenda researchers agree that it is a net positive in energy, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

I believe it is a good start, like a mild hybrid. But we need to get off corn grain as soon as practical. The good news is, the refining infrastructure has been expanding for several years. So, as other sources become economical, and I believe they soon will, we will quickly move millions of bushels away from grain as a source.

By the way,what do you think of GM, for working on the Volt?

What do you think of President Bush proposing tougher fuel economy standards yesterday.

The important question I think is: Can the technology that got these gains be translated into cellulosic ethanol production? If yes, then this is important, if not then it's just another footnote in the history of a temporary industry.

George:

Where are the "most non-agenda researchers" who agree on the net positive for corn ethanol? The recent Science articles and MIT studies show it's about neutral, and secondary effects (food prices, rainforest clearing, etc.) tip the balance to negative.

There are two justifications for corn ethanol: political/security (reduce oil dependence) and infrastructure.

Neil:

The production technology is one thing; consumption technology and infrastructure is another. Having more flex-fuel vehicles and E85 refueling station will create more demand for cellulosic ethanol, driving its production. This takes longer time lag than building the production plants.

[q->t to email]

==While most agree that corn ethanol is not the final answer, most non-agenda researchers agree that it reduces greenhouse gas emissions.==

The ONLY researchers I'm aware of are either USDA/DOE, or Groode.

And Groode's methodology is also completely suspect.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/11/195828/750

__________

If anything, don't you find it the least bit suspicious that virtually every pro-biofuel argument always circle's back to Michael Wang's numbers?

Especially since the GREET model is not peer reviewed.

David,

GREET is peer reviewed. I review it almost every week - so do many others Go download a copy and you too can peer review it.

BTW, many others have WTW models that support the ANL numbers (e.g., Dan Kammen at Berkeley). Do some more research.

ethanol is a joke. remove the subsidies and see if it's still price competitive (nope)
look at the effect of monoculture farming on our lands (not included in WTW GHG emissions but certainly a long term concern wrt future crop yields)
look at the growing dead zone in the gulf.
look at corn and wheat prices skyrocketing.
look at the morons in their 10mpg nissan armadas using e85.
all of these externalities that people neglect hide the dubious proposition that ethanol might be "good for the environment". if they were included then you would see very quickly that we're better off burning oil. hell we are better off burning oil in giant engines with no emissions control, then to bring ourselves to the point where we are competing with our cars for food!

I think once cellulose ethanol hits the market, they may be able to remove the subsidies. With the price of corn rising with demand, the price of ethanol is rising along with the price of gasoline and oil. We all know corn is not the way for the future.

We can keep 90 million acres in corn production, feed the world and make fuel out of corn stalks. Yes Virginia, you can have your cake and eat it too...magic.

I think these efficiency gains will be comforting to the millions who perish in the great famine of 2008.

Cheeky Sulleny post in 3...2...1...

==There are two justifications for corn ethanol: political/security (reduce oil dependence) and infrastructure.==

Which also happen to be some of it's biggest weaknesses.

greyfalcon.net/oilvsethanol.png
greyfalcon.net/e85stations.png

_

As for those scientists who have "an agenda".
Lets see

Mark Delucchi 2005, Tad Patzek 2006, Paul Crutzen 2007
Alex Farrell 2008, Searchinger 2008, Fargione 2008, EU Commission's Joint Research Centre 2008, UK Royal Society - John Pickett 2008, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency 2008

Take your pick.

_

Clearly, Corn supporters have no agenda.
greyfalcon.net/iowa

USDA publishes a report on corn that claims 1.24 net energy ratio by Hosein Shapouri, James A. Duffield, and Michael S. Graboski

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer721/

The update on the report puts the ratio at 1.34

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

And the UC Berkley study published in Science Jan 2006, "The ERG Biofuel Analysis Meta-Model" shows net 1.30

http://rael.berkeley.edu/EBAMM/summary.html

But nobody thinks that corn ethanol will be anything but a momentary first generation biofuel. U.S. produces half the corn in the world - 80% is used for livestock feed, 12% for food products. The hubub will end with the mass conversion of refineries to cellulosic which shows net fossil energy ratio of 10.0

David

So where did Argonne mess up on this analysis?

@bob bastard:

Sorry. I was chowing down on a big plate of... corn pone.

Someone stated that these efficincy gains are relevant, if they translate to cellulosic ethanol. Then, we can just cut off grain ethanol, in favor of cellulosic.

While technically I would agree, the real world tells a different story. Farmers, and their lobbyists, are banking on corn ethanol continuing without being cut off. Individual farmers, in many cases, are investing thousands and thousands of dollars in new wonderous machines to harvest more and more corn, in a continued growing corn market, that we, in our misguided minds think can be just cut off at will. These machine purchases need many years of bumper crops to justify their purchase in the first place. Farmers and lobbyists, not to mention representative from these corn belt areas, will not let corn ethanol dry up in this way, idling many of these big dollar machine purchases. We are in for a big struggle here to change the path of this corn ethanol monster.

They will still grow corn, but the corn will be used for food and the stalks will be used for fuel. We have reached a point where not a lot more acreage will be put into corn production. There has been a maximum set on the corn contribution to ethanol production. I do not think that farmers will be left with equipment that they can not use.

SJC

Right on.

Oh goody! A shotglass of spin for the corn/ethanol hoax.
At the expense of oilseeds that help add to the fuel pool we really need...high cetane diesel fuel. Drink up you dizzy bastards.

Frankly, Science needs to discover how to convert fossil fuel directly into food and then all of the above becomes a non-issue! The food supply intantly grows....
Oh nuts! Still same decision; does it go in the tank or in the mouth?

Does anyone know how much the dry mass of corn stocks, husks, and cornless cobs, weigh. compared to the corn from those stalks used to make ethanol? Coskata says they can derive 100 gallons, plus, of ethanol per ton of drymass for less than $1 a gallon. Is it possible the drymass could be more profitable, than the corn we are taking off the starving worlds table?

This is taken from, www.coskata.com, web site:

Simple and energy positive design - Coskata's process can produce up to 7.7 times more energy than what is used in making the ethanol. Corn-derived ethanol produces approximately 1.3 times the energy required (Argonne National Laboratory).

My math may be all wrong, but:

Corn produces about 1.3 times the energy required to make ethanol. That seems to me, a .3 increase in energy.

Coskata process produces 7.7 times more energy. That seems to be a 6.7 increase in energy.

Now, if I take 6.7 and divide by .3, I get 22.333333....

That tells me that we use 22.3333 times less land to make ethanol.

Or, use the corn biomass from the 22.3333, to make ethanol.

Then, give the world at very low prices, maybe 22.333 times less than now?

And, put 22.3333 times more corn on the table.

Maybe? Sound to good to be true? Maybe I live in dream land!

They can get about 400-500 gallons per acre with corn ethanol. I think it is about the same with cellulose. So the farmers can make money on corn for food and cellulose for fuel. It would be a good business for farmers to do a cooperative to turn the cellulose into fuel, if they can get $50 per ton for the cellulose but $200 per ton for the same cellulose made into fuel. The $1 per gallon figure might cover the variable cost but $2 per gallon would be closer to the price at the wholesale level for ethanol. Gasoline is already over $3 per gallon on the wholesale futures market.