 | EuroElections 2009 : EPP-ED | The Oil Drum | Using Thermodynamics to (Re)Examine Environmental Kuznets Curves |  |
EPA Seeks Comments on 15% Ethanol Blend
Posted by Gail the Actuary on May 11, 2009 - 10:00am
The EPA is proposing increasing the maximum amount of ethanol that can be blended into gasoline from 10% to 15%, so that ethanol producers will have a way of increasing the amount of ethanol that can be sold. The comment period for the new rule runs 30 days from April 21, so the time to make comments is in the next few days, before May 21. EPA's decision on the new rule is not expected until December 2009.
I think quite a number of Oil Drum readers would oppose this increase.
One reason comes from the impact on automobiles and other motors using the fuel. Raising the percentage of ethanol above 10% would void automobile warranties. Some types of engines, such as boat engines, may be damaged, especially if the engines are not used for extended periods, and the ethanol separates out. It is not clear that adequate testing has been done regarding the safety of E15.
There is also a question of whether one wants to encourage increased corn ethanol production. The production of corn ethanol requires that we import greater amounts of fertilizer. Because of this, increasing corn ethanol exchanges one import dependency for another. Corn is sometimes irrigated, and this puts pressure on depleting aquifers. Corn ethanol seems to be nearly as bad as gasoline from a global warming gas perspective, especially when the change in land use is considered, so a switch provides little benefit from this perspective.
The regulation in question is #EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211. This link is the place for adding comments.
Addendum: In reviewing the notice regarding the change, it looks like the EPA is considering the possibility of permitting E15 for some uses, but not others. This adds a whole new set of problems--whether users will intentionally misfuel with the cheaper fuel, and whether gasoline sellers can practically keep multiple blends on hand. Below, I have copied in the discussion from the notice:
Context of Growth Energy’s Waiver Application
On March 6, 2009, Growth Energy and 54 ethanol manufacturers submitted a waiver application to the Administrator, pursuant to section 211(f)(4) of the Act, for ethanol-gasoline blends containing up to 15 percent ethanol by volume (‘‘E15’’).
Growth Energy maintains that under the renewable fuel program requirements of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which is now primarily satisfied by the use of ethanol in motor vehicle gasoline, there exists a ‘‘blend barrier’’ or ‘‘blendwall’’ by which motor vehicle gasoline in the U.S. essentially will become saturated with ethanol at the 10 volume percent level very soon. Growth Energy maintains that a necessary first step is to increase the allowable amount of ethanol in motor vehicle gasoline up to 15 percent (E15) in order to delay the blendwall. They also claim other ways of delaying the blendwall could include adding more stations offering E85 blends and bringing in the renewable fuel mandate specified in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. For its part, Growth Energy claims that the ‘‘blendwall’’ will make those renewable fuel mandates unreachable and that there are substantial environmental benefits associated with higher ethanol blends.
Growth Energy states in its waiver application that its supporting studies and extensive experience with ethanol support a conclusion that E15 will not cause or contribute to the failure of an emission control system such that the engine or vehicles fails to achieve compliance with its emission standards.
In addition to the information that Growth Energy submitted, EPA is aware that several interested parties are investigating the impact that mid-level blends (e.g., E15 or E20) may have on vehicles and equipment. These testing programs are evaluating emissions impacts as well as other types of impacts (i.e., catalyst, engine, and fuel system durability, and onboard diagnostics) on vehicles and equipment. The Department of Energy, working in conjunction with the Coordinating Research Council and other interested parties, is leading a substantial testing effort. Results from this program to date are referenced in Growth Energy’s waiver request, and we expect additional data will be added to the docket as it becomes available.One potential outcome at the end of our process, after reviewing the entire body of scientific and technical information available to us, may be an indication that a fuel up to E15 could meet the criteria for a waiver for some vehicles and engines but not for others. Some vehicles and engines may be more
susceptible to emission increases or durability problems that cause or contribute to these vehicles or engines failing to meet their emissions standards. Assuming the criteria are met for a certain subset of vehicles, one interpretation of section 211(f)(4) is that the waiver could be approved in part for only that subset of vehicles or engines for which testing supports its use and for which adequate conditions or other measures could be implemented to ensure its proper use.Another potential outcome is a conclusion that ethanol blends of greater than 10 percent, but less than 15 percent, warrant a waiver. To take such action, the Agency would need similar evidence, such as emissions durability testing, as what would be needed to address a waiver for a 15 percent blend.
Any approval, either fully or partially, is likely to elicit a market response to add E15 blends to E10 and E0 blends in the marketplace, rather than replace them. Thus consumers would merely have an additional choice of fuel.
Experience in past fuel programs has shown that even with consumer education and fuel implementation efforts, there sometimes continues to be public concern for new fuel requirements. Several examples include the phasedown of the amount of lead allowed in gasoline in the 1980s and the introduction of reformulated gasoline (RFG) in 1995. Some segments of the public were convinced that the new fuels caused vehicle problems or decreases in fuel economy. Although substantial test data proved otherwise, these concerns lingered in some cases for several years. As a direct result of these experiences, EPA wants to be assured that prior to granting a waiver, sufficient testing has been conducted to demonstrate the compatibility of a waiver fuel with engine, fuel and emission control system components.
EPA has previously granted waivers with certain restrictions or conditions, including requirements that precautions be taken to prevent using the waiver fuel as a base fuel for adding oxygenates, that certain corrosion inhibitors be utilized when producing the waiver fuel, and that waiver fuels meet voluntary consensus-based standards such as those developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). In a partial waiver for fueling certain types of vehicles or engines, the condition placed on the fuel manufacturer would be that the fuel is only used in certain vehicles or engines (i.e., E15 is only used in the subset of vehicles or engines identified in the partial or conditional waiver).
EPA recognizes that there may be legal and practical limitations on what a fuel manufacturer may be required or able to do to ensure compliance with the conditions of the waiver, including preventing misfueling. EPA has not previously imposed this type of ‘‘downstream’’ condition on the fuel manufacturer as a condition for obtaining a section 211(f)(4) waiver.EPA does, however, have experience with compliance problems occurring when two types of gasoline have been available at service stations. Beginning in the mid-1970s with the introduction of unleaded gasoline and continuing into the 1980s as leaded gasoline was phased out, there was significant intentional misfueling by consumers. At the time most service stations had pumps dispensing both leaded and unleaded gasoline and a price differential as small as a few cents per gallon was enough to cause some consumers to misfuel.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
WE can't produce enough ethanol to run everybody on E-15. So what's the point? Are they going to end the tariff on Brazillian ethanol?
Ethanol producers are behind this request. They don't think they can sell all they are producing with an E10 limit; an E15 limit would raise the amount that can be blended in to gasoline. It is likely that not all would be E15, at least for a while.
I looked at the notice, and it looks like the EPA is thinking about possibly mandating a maximum of E10 for some uses, while permitting E15 for other uses. It seems like this would be a major mess. The notice talks about the possibility of intentional mis-fueling, with whichever is slightly cheaper. Gas stations would either have to have extra pumps, or offer only one choice.
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/green_business/archives/2008/12/et...
We buy 135 billion gallons a gas a year, 70% of which is E-10. That suggests a blendwall of around 9 billion gallons though there's some controversy where the blendwall is. So naturally the ethanol producers ramp up their production from 9 billion gallons last year to 12 billion gallons this year. Now they think they might not be able to sell all that. When did the thought ever occur to them? Naturally it is up to Washington to fix their problem.
The amount of ethanol used is already mandated in law. They'll either have to raise the blend limit, or install a lot more E85 pumps.
Brazil went through this a while back (they're now up to 26% ethanol.) It's worked just fine for them, and it will for us, too. Unless, that is, you are Exxon.
I think they're looking at keeping "Premium" at E10.
Ummh, I Vote Yes.
You are absolutely correct as to who wants e15.If they get thier way,they'll be back soon for e20.
The subsidy the ethanol industry gets would be of far more value to the country both economically and environmentally if it were to be spent on energy efficiency measures IMO.
The net energy return of corn ethanol is probably only 20 to 25 percent at best in the estimation of most agricultural professionals not in the pocket of the ethanol industry.It might be less,as there is some disagreement as to what exactly should be "charged" to corn ethanol.
The history of agricultural subsidies in this country is nothing less than appalling measured in any terms other than the bottom line of the big operators who collect the checks.The ethanol industry may be a relatively new team in the ag subsidy big leagues, but their roster includes plenty of star players and they intend to permanently occupy a prime spot at the trough for the duration.History indicates that they may very well succeed.If they do,that's one more entrenched special interest standing in the way of any real progress away from the "compound growth forever" philosophy responsible for such a large share of our problems.
I am in favor of extensive research and development of biofuels in general,especillly any that might primarily use current waste products or low value inputs such as bark and sawdust as feedstocks,but the general situation out in farm country is too much like the general situation in the ff industry for comfort.Aquifers are going dry,phosphorus and potassium supplies are finite and may peak before too long.Too much prime land is disappearing under roads and houses,although this particular trend is off sharply for the moment at least.
It is time to start thinking about big ag in much the same terms that we are thinking about peak oil.The status quo is obviously unsustainable in the long run in both cases.
Although I'd have to think about it, this is certainly a nominee for the most vile example of pure rent-seeking in America today, which is saying a lot.
America's ethanol "industry" has never produced one cent of real return or of social value. On the contrary it has been a pure parasite on oil prices, government mandates, and government subsidies.
If an economics textbook had set out to produce a fictional example of a purely parasitic, rent-seeking, feudal racket, it would've come up with something like this.
Since the price of oil plummeted and corn ethanol stopped being able to free ride on that price, its only option (since it does not and cannot produce any capitalist value) has been the standard parasite path: lobbying for an enhancement of the already obscene corporate welfare it receives.
Beyond its economic unviability, all its alleged benefits - that it would help achieve "energy independence" and reduced greenhouse gas emissions - have been proven by a welter of studies to be lies.
And then there's its aggravating effect on food prices, and its malevolent socioeconomic effects, as it further entrenches big industrial agriculture.
Every touted benefit of corn ethanol has turned out to be a lie, including the claim that it would pave the way for a much better "second generation" of cellulosic ethanol. This putative build-out is now looking decrepit itself, with projects being postponed left and right.
But I have no doubt, in addition to the lobbying for augmented corporate welfare for corn ethanol, we'll also see calls for the corporatism of the second gen. (And of course that'll be investment toward the 3rd and 4th gens, which will now be represented as the "real" viable breakthrough.)
A few weeks ago I wrote a blog post on this:
http://attempter.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/economics-of-ethanol/
Far from digging the hole deeper by increasing the blend wall, the only sane policy is to repeal the ethanol mandates and subsidies completely.
I simply have a basic objection to doing anything to encourage increased use of corn-based ethanol beyond the 5% required to substitute as oxygenator/modifier for the more unfriendly additives such as MTBE, lead, etc. If the problem is an increased production of cellulosic ethanol, then use it to shut down corn-based ethanol FIRST.
It is not particularly clear that it is really needed as an oxygenator. Modern cars have catalytic converters, so the need for an additive of any sort is less clear. The law about oxygenator is still on the books, though, I believe.
Agreed Gail. I probably didn't put a big enough "ONLY IF" in front of that thought.
As a result of US legislation in 2005 and 2007, minimum ethanol gallons (absolute gallons not percentages) are mandated by law to be added each year in the US. The minimum gallon amount of ethanol increases each year.
Since 1978 there has been a limit of 10% ethanol in gasoline nationwide (E85 and other high ethanol blends are only permitted in flexible fuel vehicles).
The ethanol industry is seeking to raise the allowable nationwide ethanol blend percentage ceiling from 10% to 15% in gasoline.
The reason for this request is that after the recent fall in total US gasoline demand as a result of the recession, the absolute gallons of ethanol mandated by law will now require nationwide blend percentages above 10%.
This situation (a fall in US gasoline demand) was not expected when ethanol mandates were initially put in place in 2005 and 2007.
Car makers and retail stations are objecting as they don't know if their vehicles and storage facilities can cope with the higher ethanol blend percentage. Here is another description of the issue.
http://www.counterpunch.org/bryce04242009.html
The Ethanol Scammers Rent a General
By ROBERT BRYCE
Author of Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of “Energy Independence”
Automobile warrantees are going to be voided by the bankruptcy courts long before E-15 hits the streets. I know, we'll have the treasury will pick up the warrantee costs of everybody's car.
Lie-gushing Robert Bryce is a free-market bullshit artist lately of IER(Institute of Energy Research(2008) and a favorite of Cato. He fronts for Big Fossil,
a climate change denier and attacks anyone supporting any form of energy independence.
http://masterresource.org/?p=1484
http://www.cato.org/weekly/index.php?vid_id=72
http://www.robertbryce.com/homepage?page=5
If he hates ethanol, I know ethanol is absolutely the right way to go.
So the enemy of your enemy is your friend?
Your logic does not add up, nor do any of the above links say anything about ethanol. Corn based ethanol still has low EROEI, contributes to water pollution and water depletion, probably is worse than gasoline as far as CO2 production, and is a drain on the federal budget due to subsidies. And you still like it?
Naah..more like "it take's one to know one".
Bryce makes his living attacking energy independence which is at odds with his free-market scamming.
Ethanol is hardly a scam. It is $1.615 per gallon or $2.42 per GGE. The cost of straight gasoline is $2.16 in Missouri, which is about 12% more in cost currently.
Ethanol is a substitute for gasoline for roughly the same price. Ethanol reduces smog which is formed when there is a lack of oxygen in the fuel and makes carbon monoxide poison.
The other oxygenate MTBE was banned as it caused serious groundwater contamination. Congress wouldn't give the oil companies liability insurance for MTBE leaks in 2005.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg.htm
What price do you put on clean air or at least reducing the levels of CO in the air? Zero?
What price do you put on CO2? Zero?
Corn ethanol produces about 84% of the GHG of gasoline in GGEs(including land use issues) according to the Lisa Jackson, head of the USEPA.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/05/tech/main4992574.shtml
Big Oil gets a blender's credit 51 cents to put ethanol in their gasoline but this is up for renewal in 2010. For E10 fuel that amounts to 5 cents per gallon subsidy or about $ 7 billion dollars (based on 140 billion gallons of gasoline). Oil companies also gets subsidies from the government of around $15 billion dollars from 2.2 billion barrels of oil thru production leases, etc.
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2009/02/26/3
If you want to get rid of all Big Oil's subsidies, that's fine with me but you'll have to guarantee that the urban smog won't come back.
As far as EROEI goes it takes 100 barrels of oil energy to make 85 boe of gasoline whereas it takes 100 boe of fossil fuel to make 134 boe of ethanol.
As far as water use goes it takes 2.5 gallons of water to make a gallon of gasoline while it takes 6 gallons of water to make corn ethanol in Iowa, Minnesota 19 gal. Nebraska and California use a lot more gallons of water per gallon of ethanol. I suggest that to save water those states go to cellulosic ethanol. If 10 gallons of water per gal. ethanol were could produce 100 billion gallons of ethanol, that would be a 1 trillion gallons of water. Lake Meade can hold 9 trillion gallons of water. There's plenty of water, IMO.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-04/uom-mep041309.php
As far as the Natural Resource Defense Council is concerned
ethanol is worth the energy.
http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/ethanol/ethanol.pdf
MANY of the opponents of ethanol are big business fronts like
the WSJ and Bryce's Energy Tribune(run by Economides, THE Peak Oil skeptic).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119621238761706021.html
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=979
http://www.robertbryce.com/node/143
"Everybody hates ethanol" [at the WSJ]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123716798764436701.html
That's a clue to what's really going on.
Lost in all the name calling and false accusations is the fact that most Peak Oilers including the majority on this site have no solutions. They revel in doomer porn a la Kunstler and want to coerce others into their view of the future by limiting options such as ethanol. They will not succeed. Doomerism and constrained options do not sell, especially when we are sitting on a means of mitigating the situation, at least for awhile.
Dependency on imported oil is not an option as ethanol opponent westexas has pointed out many, many times. I have pointed out that the EROEI case against ethanol is false. The water usage argument is irrelevant. The pollution argument is overblown in view of fossil fuel pollution. I have pointed out that the supply of corn can be increased if we reduce the number of hogs that are fed in this country and reduce corn exports. Corn exports just feed hogs in other countries plus they consume energy in transport.
Prominent contributors to this site have disparaged ethanol ever since I began following the site. They have all been wrong and they are still wrong. Ethanol will continue to grow in usage despite the doomer porn because opponents present no practical options that are politically viable.
Iowa Governor Culver has also requested a waiver to increase the ethanol content. It will be granted IMO, at least partially.
If ethanol "scammers have no shame" neither do oil companies. They all charge what the market will bear. They receive numerous tax subsidies. They are notorious for wanting public property for private gain and when they get the leases they cheat. Oil companies have a monopoly (perhaps natural) on liquid fuel distribution. And worst of all we have fought 2 major wars over oil in the last 19 years. How many have been killed to maintain our ethanol supply?
Ethanol "scammers" like myself have no need to apologize to anyone.
If anything those who know about Peak Oil and oppose mitigation with ethanol should apologize for the pain their efforts will bring on all Americans.
For you folks that aren't ethanol haters, or lovers, but are just trying to understand the truth, let me say this: According to the EPA, leaving out the Extremely questionable Indirect land use numbers, Ethanol has approx. 40% the GHG emissions as gasoline.
Now, if you're more interested in the truth, than in debating points, you need to know that the vast majority of those ILUC debits will be gone by the first of the year. CARB, immediately upon voting, stated that they were uneasy with the ILUC numbers, and were initiating a "peer review" of the theory. The EPA is doing the same thing.
I'm tired, I've spent the whole day at the VA, and I don't want to do a whole long argument on this, today; but let me make one point. The theory, basically, is that if we use corn for ethanol, we'll plant Less Beans. This will cause Brazil to have to plant More Beans to make up for the Global shortfall in beans.
BIG PROBLEM. This theory overlooks the fact that in the last 5 years Brazil has taken 5 Million Acres of Beans OUT of Production, and we've taken probably close to 10 Million Acres out of grain and cotton production. It also overlooks, of course, the fact that Brazil has 150 Million Acres of prime bean-land lying unused in the Cerrado without cutting down the first tree.
They'll, probably, settle for some number between 50 and 60% just to make everyone happy, but it's highly unlikely to be any higher.
What was your response to this study?
http://www.ucmerced.edu/news_articles/05072009_study_suggests_bioelectri...
In summary (from a CNET article): "Growing plants to make electricity is a more efficient and environmentally sound way to power vehicles than biofuels, according to a study meant to spark a debate over energy policy.
The study's authors modeled how far different classes of cars could go based on the available energy from a unit of land and found that bioelectricity--burning biomass to make electricity--far outperforms ethanol."
I think it's probably true.
Let's face it. It, really, all hinges on how many people want to drive an electric car. I don't have the foggiest; and I don't think anyone else does, either. We'll find out.
One clear option is accelerating the switch to PHEV's / EV's such as GM's Volt platform.
I'd also point out that ANY use of bio-mass --> energy depends on nature's photosynthesis for primary energy conversion.
Photosynthesis efficiency in conversion of insolation to harvestable chemical potential energy = 1% in temperate climates with good fertility and rainfall. After harvesting, chipping, torrefaction, transport to power plant, use 0.5%. Then burn in a 33% efficient boiler -> steam turbine, 0.5% x 33% = 0.165% overall efficiency, insolation to electricity. Means that, AT ANY GIVEN LOCATION, a 15% efficient solar-thermal plant can do the same job with 0.165/15 = 0.011 the area of the biomass plantation.
So which is better? 1 sq km of solar thermal which never needs re-planting and doesn't permanently damage anything, or 91 sq km of biomass plantation which depletes the soils, etc. etc. ? (HINT: the answer is solar thermal OR PV -> electrical, electric autos such a GM Volt if transportation fuel is goal))
The Ethanol path is a LOT less efficient than using whole bio-mass to fuel the boiler in a steam generating plant, as above assumes. You could likely assume 200 sq km of farmland to produce the same NET energy out in ethanol (IF ANY NET AT ALL) v.s. 1 sq km of 15% efficient solar generation at the same location.
PV generation still seems expensive: 20 to 30 cents/kWh. http://www.solarbuzz.com/SolarPrices.htm
In addition to that, the cost of powering vehicles with electricity is not negligeable either: $7000 extra per vehicle. http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/15/autos/bcg_electric_car_report/index.htm
Prominent contributors to this site have disparaged ethanol ever since I began following the site. They have all been wrong and they are still wrong.
The very fact that the government continues to have to intervene - and yet ethanol companies are still barely solvent - says that we were correct and continue to be correct. This enterprise only exists because of perpetual infusions of taxpayer funds and is propped up by fossil fuels.
If ethanol "scammers have no shame" neither do oil companies. They all charge what the market will bear. They receive numerous tax subsidies.
Let's compare the subsidies and tax payments of both oil companies and ethanol companies. While ethanol companies are begging for more handouts, oil companies continue to pay massive tax payments into the coffers. Only a corn farmer could fail to see the huge discrepancy between the two industries.
And worst of all we have fought 2 major wars over oil in the last 19 years. How many have been killed to maintain our ethanol supply?
We have been over this. Unless you aren't running your tractors on diesel, then why aren't you as culpable as anyone else?
Well, I'm tired of American Kids Dying for MY Fuel, hence My Purchase of a a FlexFuel Automobile.
I guess you have missed the point. Unless your FlexFuel Automobile is running on 100% ethanol (which we know it doesn't) that was produced without the use of foreign petroleum, to the extent that kids are dying for fuel they are dying for your fuel. What you could say is fewer kids are dying for your fuel, but don't kid yourself.
Of course like you I could claim that no American Kids die for MY fuel, since it is derived solely from Canadian petroleum. But like yours, that would be a pretty naive statement.
We produce about 35% of our own petroleum (includes "refinery gain.")
E85 only uses from 15% to 30%, depending on the season, petroleum.
Ergo, if everyone used E85, or a biofuel equivalent, we wouldn't have to import oil from other countries, much less the middle east.
In fact, inasmuch as the Mideast is our "marginal" supplier, a 30% blend would do it.
But the point is, for you and all of the other people who want to claim that American kids aren't dying for your fuel - is that you have no way of ensuring that your oil didn't come from the Mideast, or Venezuela, or anywhere else. So these are really hollow claims.
What I want to see is someone running their whole operation off of ethanol and domestic natural gas (although I maintain that it would be more efficient to just use the gas directly as fuel). Those people will have the moral high ground to make those sorts of claims (but of course there will still be oil inputs into tractor tires, plastic parts, etc. etc.). It is really hard to get completely out from under oil in the operation, but I would be satisfied if the fuel inputs were entirely natural gas and ethanol.
Of course if you ever designed the entire operation to run off of ethanol and various by-products, those energy balance issues that I am always harping on will become glaringly obvious. You won't have much ethanol left over to sell.
You make no sense. Because, like Ko said, if all the oil-based components were made from US oil, no need to make war in the Middle East or in other places of the world, and thus no "American kids would be dying for fuel".
And you keep harping always the same thing: "entire operation on ethanol" won't work. I think nobody said it would. Because a solution does not entirely displace fossil fuel, doesn't mean it is no solution.
If you are only "satisfied" with solutions that are "completely out from under oil", I would like to know what your "solution" is....
You make no sense.
Rich, coming from a guy who rejects the Theory of Evolution, and further doesn't even understand the scientific definition of theory. But I will play along just this once.
if all the oil-based components were made from US oil,
But they aren't. Thus, my point about people who push ethanol and claim that American kids aren't dying for their fuel. The claim is disingenuous. If you don't understand that, no need to keep bothering me about it.
Because a solution does not entirely displace fossil fuel, doesn't mean it is no solution.
Congratulations. You managed to miss two points there. One, that the issue of fossil fuel inputs - coming at times from Middle East oil, precludes ethanol guys from claiming the moral high ground. If they wish to claim it, get the oil out of the operation. This is the 1st point you missed.
Second, if you ran the operation off of ethanol, the energy balance issue would blow up in their faces - exposing the fact that "entirely displacing fossil fuel" wasn't even a discussion point. The question is whether it displaces any, or more than a trivial amount. If you tried to run the operation off of ethanol, the truth would be hard to escape. This is the 2nd point you missed.
If you are only "satisfied" with solutions that are "completely out from under oil"
But that wasn't what I wrote, was it? If you focus on what I wrote, and not what you wish I had written, then you can save yourself some typing.
Oh, because I don't believe in some theory, I must have it all wrong? How, if we would apply the same to you?
The case was made clear: If only US oil is used, there would be no need to make wars with others over oil? Saying: "but they arent'" does not address the hypothesis. Saying: "If you don't understand that, no need to keep bothering me about it." is a non-sequitur.
Your objection that I missed point One contradicts your objection that I missed point Two. Because the first point speaks about "get the oil out of the operation" and the second point states: "that "entirely displacing fossil fuel" wasn't even a discussion point."
Therefore, I maintain my "no sense" argument.... Good bye.
No American kids died for my electric bike powered by my solar panels. Lot's of Chinese got rich.
Its important enough to put in again as a new thread:
Photosynthesis efficiency in conversion of insolation to harvestable chemical potential energy = 1% in temperate climates with good fertility and rainfall. After harvesting, chipping, torrefaction, transport to power plant, use 0.05%. Then burn in a 33% efficient boiler -> steam turbine, 0.05% x 33% = 0.0165% overall efficiency, insolation to electricity. Means that, AT ANY GIVEN LOCATION, a 15% efficient solar-thermal plant can do the same job with 0.0165/15 = 0.0011 the area of the biomass plantation.
So which is better? 1 sq km of solar thermal which never needs re-planting and doesn't permanently damage anything, or 909.1 sq km of biomass plantation which depletes the soils, etc. etc. ? (HINT: the answer is solar thermal OR PV -> electrical, electric autos such a GM Volt if transportation fuel is goal)
The Ethanol path is a LOT less efficient than using whole bio-mass to fuel the boiler in a steam generating plant, as above assumes. You could likely assume 2000 sq km of farmland to produce the same NET energy out in ethanol (IF ANY NET AT ALL) v.s. 1 sq km of 15% efficient solar generation at the same location.
Also note that the 1% efficiency I granted photosynthesis is a VERY generous over-estimation, typically possible only with perenial plants at the equator with fertile soils and abundant moisture available. Go temperate climate with winter dormancy, annual crops with low areal coverage in spring, off-angle insolation at higher latitudes, imperfect fertility, imperfect water availability, etc. etc. its probably more acurate to use 0.25% which raises the area ratio to 1 sq km solar thermal / PV to 3,636 sq km biomass burning to 8,000 sq km ethanol.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/458172/photosynthesis/60563/En... Energy efficiency of photosynthesis - Encyclopedia Britanica
[QUOTE]The actual percentage of solar energy stored by plants is much less than the maximum energy efficiency of photosynthesis. An agricultural crop in which the biomass (total dry weight) stores as much as 1 percent of total solar energy received on an annual area-wide basis is exceptional, although a few cases of higher yields (perhaps as much as 3.5 percent in sugarcane) are reported. There are several reasons for this difference between the predicted maximum efficiency of photosynthesis and the actual energy stored in biomass. First, more than half of the incident sunlight is composed of wavelengths too long to be absorbed, while some of the remainder is reflected or lost to the leaves. Consequently, plants can at best absorb only about 34 percent of the incident sunlight. Second, plants must carry out a variety of physiological processes in such nonphotosynthetic tissues as roots and stems; these processes, as well as cellular respiration in all parts of the plant, use up stored energy. Third, rates of photosynthesis in bright sunlight sometimes exceed the needs of the plants, resulting in the formation of excess sugars and starch. When this happens, the regulatory mechanisms of the plant slow down the process of potosynthesis, allowing more absorbed sunlight to go unused. Fourth, in many plants, energy is wasted by the process of photorespiration. Finally, the growing season may last only a few months of the year; sunlight received during other seasons is not used. Furthermore, it should be noted that if only agricultural products (e.g., seeds, fruits, and tubers, rather than total biomass) are considered as the end product of the energy conversion process of photosynthesis, the efficiency falls even further.[/QUOTE]
So you're saying that we lose 95% of available energy in "harvesting, chipping, torrefaction, and transportation?"
I think you need to show a source, here.
Sorry, you're right. Revised:
Photosynthesis efficiency in conversion of insolation to harvestable chemical potential energy = 1% in temperate climates with good fertility and rainfall. After harvesting, chipping, torrefaction, transport to power plant, use 0.5%. Then burn in a 33% efficient boiler -> steam turbine, 0.5% x 33% = 0.165% overall efficiency, insolation to electricity. Means that, AT ANY GIVEN LOCATION, a 15% efficient solar-thermal plant can do the same job with 0.165/15 = 0.011 the area of the biomass plantation.
So which is better? 1 sq km of solar thermal which never needs re-planting and doesn't permanently damage anything, or 90.9 sq km of biomass plantation which depletes the soils, etc. etc. ? (HINT: the answer is solar thermal OR PV -> electrical, electric autos such a GM Volt if transportation fuel is goal)
The Ethanol path is a LOT less efficient than using whole bio-mass to fuel the boiler in a steam generating plant, as above assumes. You could likely assume 200 sq km of farmland to produce the same NET energy out in ethanol (IF ANY NET AT ALL) v.s. 1 sq km of 15% efficient solar generation at the same location.
Also note that the 1% efficiency I granted photosynthesis is a VERY generous over-estimation, typically possible only with perenial plants at the equator with fertile soils and abundant moisture available. Go temperate climate with winter dormancy, annual crops with low areal coverage in spring, off-angle insolation at higher latitudes, imperfect fertility, imperfect water availability, etc. etc. its probably more acurate to use 0.25% which raises the area ratio to 1 sq km solar thermal / PV to 364 sq km biomass burning to 800 sq km ethanol.
You realize that you're crazy, right? (Just joking!)
Corn is not purely an energy crop.
You must leave the coproduct in because the reason farmers plant corn is to make feed for animals and that is what distillers dried grain with solubles is.
Corn ethanol with the coproduct credit is about 75% fossil fuel. 1.5 gallons of ethanol is equal in energy to 1 gallon of gasoline, so 1.125 units of fossil fuel equals one unit of car fuel.
It takes 3 units of fossil fuels to make one unit of grid electricity and it takes 1.33 units of grid electricity to rectify into 1 unit of battery electricity. Overall that's 4 units of fossil fuel to make 1 unit of battery electricity.
If biomass is used instead of coal,the efficiency is the same(actually less because you need to dry out biomass before you burn it)
An electric car can go 40 miles on 10 kwh.
A gasoline car can go 40 miles on 1 gallon of gasoline.
SUVs are not comparable to electric cars, but hybrids are similar.
One kwh=3412 Btus, One gallon of gasoline is 120000 Btus.
10 kwh=34120 Btus, 4 x 34120=135480 Btus of fossil fuel/biomass.
1.125 x 120000 = 135000 Btus of fossil fuel.
Surprise! Corn ethanol in hybrids is MORE efficient than electric cars powered by biomass.
Let me repeat.
CORN ETHANOL IN HYBRIDS IS MORE EFFICIENT THAN BURNING BIOMASS TO PROVIDE ELECTRICITY FOR ELECTRIC CARS.
Luckily there are no horde of electric cars demanding to be fed but ethanol provides about 4% of US transportation fuel.
As far as photoelectric electricity goes, PV cells produce about 1 kwh per day per m^2 in Arizona(insolation is 8kwh/day/m2). If you hooked up your battery car in the day and only drove at night it would take 10m2 of PV to fill your battery every day and in Iowa you'd have to have 2 or 3 times more area. Otherwise you'd have to find some kind of intermediate storage and the efficiency would drop.
A bushel of corn produces 2.6 gallons of ethanol or 1.7 gallons of gasoline equivalent. An acre of corn can produce 150 bushels per year or 260 gallons of gasoline equivalent or .7 gallons per day.
1.4 acres of Iowa farmland costs $5600.
20 square meters of PV cells costs about $20000.
One kwh=3412 Btus, One gallon of gasoline is 115,000 Btus. One gallon ethanol is 76,100 BTU
An electric car can go 40 miles on 10 kwh.
A gasoline car can go 40 miles on 1 gallon of gasoline.
A gasoline car can go 40 * 76100/115000 = 26.5 miles on 1 gallon of ethanol.
SUVs are not comparable to electric cars, but hybrids are similar.
1 acre of corn producing 150 bu can produce 2.7 x 150 = 405 gallons ethanol / yr.
405 x 26 mpg = 10,530 miles driving / acre / year.
1 acre of 15% effic. solar thermal or PV in Iowa can produce 4047 sq m/acre x 5.5 kwh/sq m/day raw insolation x 365 days x 80% tilt area effic. x 15% electrical eff. x 95% transmission x 90% charging = 833,600 kwh electricity / yr.
833,600 kwh x 4 miles / kwh = 3,334,400 miles driving / acre / year.
Surprise! Corn ethanol in IC engine cars is NOT MORE efficient use of land area than electric cars powered by 15% efficient solar thermal. (And I didn't even charge the ethanol system with the fuel, fertilizer and distilling energy inputs.)
Let me repeat.
CORN ETHANOL IN HYBRIDS IS A WASTE OF SPACE, ENERGY AND TIME. Solar PV or Thermal will produce 316.66 times more driving miles / acre land use.
"1 acre of 15% effic. solar thermal or PV in Iowa can produce 4047 sq m/acre x 5.5 kwh/sq m/day raw insolation x 365 days x 80% tilt area effic. x 15% electrical eff. x 95% transmission x 90% charging = 833,600 kwh electricity / yr."
If this is true, I wonder why those stupid farmers in Iowa are still messing with growing corn. I mean 833600 kWh per year at 6 cents = 50K per acre!!!
I guess it's time to talk, "Investment," huh?
Bravo, Lengould!
Yes, and 1.5 gallons of ethanol = 1 gallon of gas so 1.5 x 26.5 =~40 miles per gallon( okay 39.75 mpg).
No.
The third largest solar energy plant in the world currently operating is a 60 MW plant in sunny Portugal produces 88 Gwh per year covers 320 acres or 275,000 kwh per acre per year or
68 kwh per year per m2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moura_photovoltaic_power_station
20 m2 would be 1360 kwh per year or enough energy for 136 nights of driving or 5440 miles. If you do use secondary storage so you can drive during the day, that will reduce your efficiency greatly.
Nevada Solar One (solar thermal)project covers 300 acres to produce 134 Gwh per year of electricity or 450,000 kwh per acre, 111 kwh per m2. The project cost $266 million dollars or $220 per square meter(in Nevada).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Solar_One
20 m2 would let you drive 8880 miles a year at night in Nevada. Assuming you 5.5 kwh per m2 per day applies to Iowa, your solar thermal plant would have to be 1.45 times as big.
260 gallons per year of gasoline equivalent x 40 mpg= 10400 miles per year for ethanol, same as 23.4 m2 of Nevada Solar One or 34 m2 of Iowa Solar One.
I agree that an acre of Iowa solar thermal electricity makes 120 times more driving miles than an acre of corn ethanol.
However an acre of corn costs $5600 for the land plus less than $2.42 per gallon equivalent x 260 gallons-equivalent per acre every year or $630 every year and one 1/120th of an acre of Iowa solar would cost $7388 to produce the same amount of car energy( assuming you drive your car at night while it charges up on solar during the day).
The amount of energy corn ethanol requires is about the same as gasoline per GGE so this is a serious objection but then again it shouldn't surprise us that large amounts of energy are required to create a storage medium like ethanol. All energy storage is liable to be very expensive.
Your kwhs are about 2-3 times greater than real solar energy projects are producing and solar is still too expensive and you don't include the cost and efficiency of secondary storage like pumped hydro, grid batteries, etc. so you can drive your car in the daytime.
I support the efforts of the solar industry(especially Stirling Energy Systems) but there is too much optimism
The solar industry's optimism is based on real data and accurate engineering studies. Not sure what the ethanol distiller's optimism is based on, except perhaps faith in their Washington lobby.
Huh? I included all losses (T&D, charger), and the electric autos provide their own storage. Please review logic.
I also note that since doing above I have tracked down reliable calculations of energy inputs to corn growing and ethanol bio-refinery energy inputs. The lowest concensus agreement (California govt. study for non-irrigated corn) on farm inputs to corn growing is 22,800 Btu/bushel, and on Processing energy in the refinery to make ethanol is 38,200 Btu/gal (LHV) after allocation to by-products, total penalty to ethanol production of 22,800/2.7 + 38,200 = 46,644 Btu/gal ethanol with typical yields of 125 bu/acre.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-600-2007-002/CEC-600-2007-...
http://www.nrbp.org/pdfs/ethanol_balance.pdf
Adjusting the above calculation for these figures provides the following.
1 acre of corn producing 125 bu can produce 2.7 x 125 = 337.5 gallons ethanol / yr.
Reducing that production to provide for required inputs:
46,644 BTU/gal / 76,100 btu/gal = 61.29% of product consumed by inputs, leaving 38.71% for running cars.
337.5 x 38.71% x 26 mpg = 3,397 miles driving / acre / year.
1 acre of 15% effic. solar thermal or PV in Iowa can produce 4047 sq m/acre x 5.5 kwh/sq m/day raw insolation x 365 days x 80% tilt area effic. x 15% electrical eff. x 95% transmission x 90% charging = 833,600 kwh electricity / yr.
833,600 kwh x 4 miles / kwh = 3,334,400 miles driving / acre / year.
Let me repeat.
CORN ETHANOL IS A WASTE OF SPACE, ENERGY AND TIME. Solar PV or Thermal will produce 982 times more driving miles / acre land use. Reasonably rounded, solar thermal or PV is 1,000 times more land use efficient.
This is for anyone interested in verifying solar thermal figures.
http://www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/34440.pdf Assessment of Parabolic Trough and Power Tower Solar Technology - Cost and Performance Forecasts - Sargent & Lundy LLC Engineering Group Chicago, Illinois
[QUOTE]For the more technically aggressive low-cost case, S&L found the National Laboratories’ “SunLab” methodology and analysis to be credible. The projections by SunLab, developed in conjunction with industry, are considered by S&L to represent a “best-case analysis” in which the technology is optimized and a high deployment rate is achieved. The two sets of estimates, by SunLab and S&L, provide a band within which the costs can be expected to fall. The figure and table below highlight these results, with initial electricity costs in the range of 10 to 12.6 ¢/kWh and eventually achieving costs in the range of 3.5 to 6.2 ¢/kWh. The specific values will depend on total capacity of various technologies deployed and the extent of R&D program success. In the technically aggressive cases for troughs / towers, the S&L analysis found that cost reductions were due to volume production (26%/28%), plant scale-up (20%/48%), and technological advance 54%/24%).[/QUOTE]
Given Sargent & Lundy Engineering's worst case scenario provides peak time solar electricity at $0.062/kwh by only building 2.8 GW and doing a few minor and definitely achievable R&D improvements, plus transmission, and a clear path is provided to offering 83% capacity factor using cheap sand and gravel tanks for thermal storage with 3x collector area and no additional central plant, which should make the installation no more expensive PER KWH if only the industry can get to 2.8 GW installed, I don;t see what we are waiting for.
It also appears to me that the more agressive forecasts of NREL / SunLab of $0.035 / kwh if we can get to 8.2 GW installed quite quickly is entirely within reach.
-----
Further, here's some background, and some area figures on two currently operating solar plants in the US.
http://www.nrel.gov/pv/pdfs/39683.pdf Very Large-Scale Deployment of Grid-Connected Solar Photovoltaics in the United States: Challenges and Opportunities - NREL
Schott AG, the German technology group, will be providing 19,300 solar receivers that will form the key components of the 64-megawatt power plant. The plant, expected to cost $100 million, is scheduled to be operational by March 2007, said Gary Bailey, regional managing director for Solargenix.
100,000,000/64,000 = $1,563 / kw solar thermal
300 acres Nevada, 213.333 kw / acre
http://www.physorg.com/news10832.html Ground broken on Nevada solar plant - 13 Feb 2007
The concept behind this 75-megawatt solar generator ..... FPL estimates the Babcock Ranch solar facility will cost about $300 million and sit on 350 acres within the development.
http://www.physorg.com/news158847181.html New Florida City To Run On Solar (PV) Power - 14 Apr 2009
300,000,000/75,000,000 = $4,000 / kw solar PV
350 acres Florida, 214.285 kw / acre
Aw, come on, Lenny; you're citing old Pimental, and Petzak stuff.
Corn yields haven't been 125 bu/acre in many years. Last year was 154. This year is expected to come in around 160. Refinery inputs are in the 26,000 btu/gal range, now.
I don't know if your solar numbers are right, or not; but if I can't trust your ethanol numbers how can I trust your solar numbers?
Look, if you want to argue for a solar farm outside of L.A., or Phoenix for "Peak" demand I'm on-board. If you want to try and tie solar, and wind, together, with a biomass, or NG buffer, I'll give it a shot.
BUT, when you start talking about powering vehicles in Iowa, and Minnesota with Solar I gotta be convinced.
But, you won't convince me (or, hardly anyone) by misrepresenting the alternatives.
If you actually read the link, you'll find I'm using US Dept. of Agriculture figure, NOT Pimental, which are MUCH worse. Good try at dissembling, though.
I also note that, in order to keep input charges lower, Dept of Ag. used figure for only un-irrigated corn, which might explain their low yield figure. Even Pimental uses 130 bu / acre, but charges heavily for irrigation. Not sure why California figures fail to include irrigation.....
If only you consider the extra cost for an electric vehicle ($7000) and amortize that over say 10,000 miles per year and 5 years for a vehicle using 0.5 kWh/mile, your EXTRA cost for an EV are $0.07 per mile (and 0.14 per kWh).
An acre that would be producing 833600 kWh per year would need to have a net capacity of 833600/365days/12hrs =228kW. At 4000/kW (but we have heard numbers of 7000/kW too) this installation is going to cost $0.11/kWh in capex cost. (20 years; 10%). In addition you would need backup power (when the sun doesn't shine) and therefore a conventional baseline station at half the price presumably: add $0.05 /kWh. Now, your total capex coverage is $0.16 /kWh. Let's skip T&D capex. But we need to add the fuel for the backup plant and overhead costs: let's say 15% overall. Now, your kWh is $0.19. However, your 833600 kWh produced don't make it all into miles. Let's assume a generous 50% do. Now, your cost is $0.38 /kWh.
So, assuming your EV needs 0.5 kWh/mile, your total cost per mile ais $0.07 plus $0.19 = $0.26.
Now, ethanol from corn costs about $2 per gallon to produce. Per gallon also $0.50 of byproduct gets produced, so the net cost per gallon is $1.50. Let's say that distribution (10%) and markup (5%) bring the price to $1.73. Assuming ethanol does 20MPG (instead of gasoline at 30MPG), the cost per mile for ethanol is $0.09 per mile.
Ridiculous. I am using the lesser of Majorian's 3:17PM quote "An electric car can go 40 miles on 10 kwh" (onboard the vehicle batteries) and GM's documentation for the Chevy Volt which states "4.2 miles/kwh". My allowance of 95% transmission allows for the standard 5% transmission losses, and my 90% charger allows for the standard 90% efficiency of the charger putting energy into the batteries.
Please read the thread, and use the proper 0.25 kwh/mile.
All the discussion of costs is not relevant, because I never adressed the issue of costs, BUT I think if ethanol subsidies are removed, the electrical path MUST be cheaper than ethanol. I'll do that in another article.
"My allowance of 95% transmission allows for the standard 5% transmission losses, and my 90% charger allows for the standard 90% efficiency of the charger putting energy into the batteries."
T&D losses are rather 7%
But before you can put your kWh into T&D you need to invert and increase your voltage: count 10%
Once your kWh get into the home the power needs to be converted: count 10% loss. Then it needs to be trickle charged into your battery: count between 10 and 20% loss.
Then you have your battery filled up and are ready to go. But to go means discharging the battery: count 15%. (these charge and discharge numbers over the life time of the battery: new ones perform much better, but as they get older (like in your laptop) it gets worse and worse)
The EV engine has a loss of 10%
Not to forget the overall decay in your solar system gives you an average 5% loss over the 20 years. Add all this up and you will be loosing more than 50% of the kWh produced by your system.
You use 7%, I use 5% (see x 95% distribution my calc based on average system-wide T&D losses for Province of Quebec, an area with very long distance transmission. What's your reference?
Wrong. A solar thermal plant uses a steam turbine generator, just like any other electrical generation. I assume the stated kwhr/yr output of the Florida solar PV station is based on AC input to the t&D system, have you a reference stating it's not?
Standard battery charger losses from AC to battery are 10% total, which I used (see x 90% charger my calc)
Included in the "4 mi/kwh" rating published for TZero EV (4.2 for GM Volt, but I used the lower figure agreed by M. above.)
Again, included in the "4 mi/kwh"
Wrong. A solar thermal steam plant has no significant decay.
Add all your objections up, and I get nothing new. I stand by the calculation.
T&D loss of 7% is average North America and Europe. Quebec might be lower, because almost no congestion.
If you use direct turbine indeed no need for expensive (both in dollars and loss) inverter banks. Still might have to transform though.
Since you seem be mounted on the solar thermal horse (rather than PV) you might not want to underestimate the geographic cost in terms of T&D losses: they could be higher if you want to transport power from Arizona to Maine.
In your home you need to convert from AC to DC indeed. But what you also need to count is the time (=loss) that the charger tries to cram electrons into your battery. In situations where you want the battery to be maximally charged (because you don't want to get stuck somewhere without power) and for older batteries, losses are higher.
As to the 4mi/kWh vehicle you propose, you would need to compare really apples with apples when comparing to ICE and ethanol.
Your 4mi/kWh vehicle equates to a 60MPG ICE vehicle.
If all the solar thermal installation needs to do is out-perform bio-ethanol production, it doesn't matter where its installed. Put it directly beside the loads, wherever.
"Our onboard data logging shows the tZero averaged just under 180 DC Wh/mile from the battery on the efficiency test." (TZero supersport car in Bibendum controlled competition, minimum 45 mph on a winding race track) http://www.electricauto.org/CurrentEvents/pdf/2003/CurrentEvents200311.pdf pp 14
That amounts to 5.56 miles/kwh, but agreed, only a small sports car which can blow the doors off a corvette. I can no longer locate the reference from GM on the Chevy Volt getting 4.2 miles/kwh, but its out there and reliable.
"If all the solar thermal installation needs to do is out-perform bio-ethanol production, it doesn't matter where its installed. Put it directly beside the loads, wherever." This sounds like a cop-out? There always is a cost...
"That amounts to 5.56 miles/kwh". You seem to keep moving the goal post: 5.56mi/kWh = 83MPG ICE vehicle. A mile would cost me only $0.03 of ethanol in such vehicle. The fixed extra costs of your EV alone (low estimate $7000??) alone would almost be twice as high than for an ICE. And then you still need to buy some expensive electricity.....
It's a dream world. What price can you buy an EV for?
You're unrealistic.
The fact that the solar thermal Nevada_Solar_One 64 MW(75 MW maximum) in the sunny Nevada desert produces just 134 Gwh means it only outputs to its design 2100 hours per year or 6 hours per day.
The sun sends about 1.4 kwh per hour per meter squared to the Nevada over 6 hours or 8.4 kwh/day/m2. The output of solar thermal NS1 is 213000 watts per acre/4049m2 per acre=50 watts per square meter. 50/1400= 3.5% efficient, for what it's worth.
As to costs, NS1 cost $266 million for a 300 acre site, so Schott is just flat out lying.
SES's super secret Suncatcher project is guestimated at more than $500 million for a 300 MW site but it's impossible to get any solid cost info on it.
NRBP is an industry group for people selling wood for heating so they really HATE cellulosic ethanol--it would raise the price of wood!
http://www.nrbp.org
Adjusting the above calculation for these figures provides the following.
Meaningless.
All the inputs go to producing the output. 115% of the energy of oil results in gasoline. That's all that matters. There's no leftover oil or energy.
833,600 kwh....lg
Already refuted by Nevada Solar One which covers 300 acres and generates 134 Gwh per year---446,666 kwh per year per acre. You're already almost twice as optimistic as reality.
Don't hyperventilate. The more you exaggerate the sillier you look.
Solar is 120 times more 'land efficient' for whatever that is worth per my previous calc. Not 1000 times.
But only if you ignore the practical obstacles like cost,energy storage and conversion. I hope you like driving your electric car at night(without energy storage beyond the battery). BTW it takes 3-6.5 hours to charge an 8 kwh Chevy volt battery and solar plants put out full power for only 6 hours a day.
We don't need to look at old S&L studies on solar thermal, we can look at real plants like Nevada Solar One.
Ok, lets use Nevada Solar - 213 kw/acre
1,400,000 sq m / 4047 = 346 acres
129,000,000 kwh per yr / 346 acres = 372,902 kwh per yr / acre.
1 acre of corn producing 125 bu can produce 2.7 x 125 = 337.5 gallons ethanol / yr.
Reducing that production to provide for required inputs:
46,644 BTU/gal / 76,100 btu/gal = 61.29% of product consumed by inputs, leaving 38.71% for running cars.
337.5 x 38.71% x 26 mpg = 3,397 miles driving / acre / year.
1 acre of Solar Thermal in Nevada can produce 372,902 x 95% transmission x 90% charging = 318,831 kwh electricity / yr.
318,831 kwh x 4 miles / kwh = 1,275,325 miles driving / acre / year.
1 acre of Solar Thermal in Iowa can produce 372,902 x 95% transmission x 90% charging x 8.2/5.5 = 213,850 kwh electricity / yr.
213,850 kwh x 4 miles / kwh = 855,401 miles driving / acre / year.
Let me repeat.
CORN ETHANOL IS A WASTE OF SPACE, ENERGY AND TIME. Solar PV or Thermal will produce >250 times more driving miles / acre land use even in places like Iowa. Reasonably rounded, solar thermal or PV is 252 to 375 times more land use efficient.
It's you bunch who should stop acting so shocked. I'm not frothing, simply responding. I've known these numbers in general terms for a long time.
Also re:
a) I said nothing about costs other than to carry in some quotes which I chose not to edit to remove other's statements. My MAIN reference for costs is to the Sargent and Lundys Engineers report which I linked for your pleasure, which I think, given their reputation I'll take as valid over your estimations of someone as "liars". Thanks anyway.
re:
b) Please explain your particular interpretation of thermodynamics. I would note that I generously left out of the ethanol calculation all the road maintenance required to haul corn to the processing plant, and the trucking required to haul the ethanol to the blending stations and deliver it to the retail stations (gasoline pipelines cannot handle it)..... and some others, whereas I did provide a realistic calculation of electrical transmission and distribution losses.
c) As to reliability / load factor, if what you want is baseload / night generation then (per Sargent and Lundy and others) tripling the collector area per unit generation and adding cheap sand and gravel thermal storage will get you 83% reliability. If that's not good enough, add a gas turbine generator as a burner in front of the solar station's steam turbine system and run it as an emergency peaker in combined cycle, similar to a current CCGT generating station. May also prove useful as a peaker.... The tripled collector area will give you triple the kwh output from the same generating station for only the cost of the added collectors, so actually makes the per-kwh cost cheaper.
d) Any bio-crop is also very shortly going to become subject to some very nasty input shortages, eg. phosphorous and potash fertilizers. We're foolish indeed, with only about 80 years known reserves worldwide of phosphorous fertilizer, to be greatly expanding the use of intensively farmed bio-crops as motor fuel.
Bottom line is, does it make ANY difference if the ratio is 1000 times better or 250 times better?
Fine, based on wikipedia I got 446,666 kwh per acre per year you get 372902 down from 833333 kwh per acre per year.(
A little more realistic.)
1 acre of corn producing 125 bu can produce 2.7 x 125 = 337.5 gallons ethanol / yr.
Your bushels are low; I get 2.6 gal per bu x 150 bu/a=390 gallons of ethanol per acre per year, which is equivalent to 260 gallons per acre per year of gasoline.
The only number that matters is 76100 btu/gal. You obviously don't see that your point is silly.
The correct number is 260 gal x 40 mpg=10400 miles per year, which coincidently is the same as 26.6 mpg x 390 gal.
Iowa gets 3.5-4.0 kwh per day per m2 of insolation(3.75 average). Nevada 5.75
http://howto.altestore.com/Solar-Insolation-Map-USA/a44/
No 3.75/5.75 x 372902=243,196.
The efficiency of electric cars fed off the grid is 76% according to Ulf Bossel's pals.
http://www.efcf.com/reports/E18.pdf
.76 x 243196= 184829 kwh per acre.
4 mpkw x 184829 kwh = 739315 miles
739315 miles/10400 = 71 times. I stated 120 times before. You stated 1000 times before( your natural optimism?).
LOL....Evidently not!
Gee, me not know thermody--whatchmacallit or EROEI-whatchamacallit!
I do know that +117 gallons of fossil fuel energy(oil) produces 100 gallons of gasoline and at the end of the process all you have is gasoline that I can burn in my car.
And I know it takes 56000 BTUs of various fossil fuels to get 75600 BTUs of ethanol that I can burn in my car. That's all I care about. You want compare renewable energy with renewable energy which you can't do with corn ethanol. Try sugar cane, where part of the crop is used for distillation instead of fossil fuel. With an EROEI of 4.5, you have 16800 BTUs of fossil fuels and 58800 BTUs of renewable energy. I don't anyone who is using your kind of thermody-whatchamacallit analysis.
c) As to reliability / load factor, if what you want is baseload / night generation then (per Sargent and Lundy and others) tripling the collector area per unit generation and adding cheap sand and gravel thermal storage will get you 83% reliability. If that's not good enough, add a gas turbine generator as a burner in front of the solar station's steam turbine system and run it as an emergency peaker in combined cycle, similar to a current CCGT generating station. May also prove useful as a peaker.... The tripled collector area will give you triple the kwh output from the same generating station for only the cost of the added collectors, so actually makes the per-kwh cost cheaper.
Maybe..maybe not...who knows? (Add a gas turbine? Me no like!)
d) Any bio-crop is also very shortly going to become subject to some very nasty input shortages, eg. phosphorous and potash fertilizers. We're foolish indeed, with only about 80 years known reserves worldwide of phosphorous fertilizer, to be greatly expanding the use of intensively farmed bio-crops as motor fuel.
Phosphorous is Bob Shaw's hobby horse,so don't steal it.
There's lots of potash in the US, around a 200 year supply and most of it is in Canada.
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/potash/mcs-2009-potas.pdf
Bottom line is, does it make ANY difference if the ratio is 1000 times better or 250 times better?-lengould
Or 71 times...
It makes a difference because your relentless cheerleading is
creating a false impression about the ease and efficiency of solar thermal energy.
Im a midwest ADM stockholder and I am Fing Pod. The thing that drives this ethanol insanity is the Renewable Fuel Standard. Its some huge number of "renewable fuel" thats alleged to be able to be produced, ecology or economics or engines be damned by 2011? Nobody knows how E15 is going to affect millions of engines NOT designed for it. Its one canoworms after another.
One thing for sure...BIODIESEL, the other unheard-of, renewable, biofuel, WILL drop-in to ANY diesel tank with no problems at 5%, maybe even 10. Why we arent all-over this genuine product, amazes me.
I too am an ADM shareholder, but I agree that we can do better things with corn than produce more ethanol, especially when there is risk to engines with this untested increase. Hey, exporting more corn would help our balance of payments just as much as would importing less petroleum.
Thank you Gail for this heads-up and link. I went to the site and posted my comments against this proposal.
Yeah, I guess all those millions of gasoline engines have probably broken down in Brazil now that they're running ethanol in those Gasoline Engines.
What, they've been doing it for years? 26% Ethanol? No problems?
Huh,
imagine that
never mind
Brazil is a tropical country straddling the equator. Their ethanol comes from sugar cane. Theyve had a national energy policy starting over twenty years ago. The US is a much bigger, diverse place with way more potential driveability and emission warranty problems.
Anyone should have the right to burn as much ethanol as they please, but it shouldnt be forced on those that dont want any more than 10% either, and certainly not until any drawbacks are resolved.
You may want to google up "Brazil." It's a Vast country. Bigger than the Continental United States. Part is Tropical. Part is Sub-Tropica. And, part falls in the Temperate Zone.
Anyway, there have been no problems with running ethanol blends up to 26% in their "Gasoline" engines. Unless, of course, you think all those rich Brazilians rushed out and bought "brand-new" vehicles when the ethanol was introduced into their gasoline.
Do you believe that?
Irrelevant. One issue which IS relevant is the HUGE subsidies provided to US auto makers to build and sell thousands and thousands of E85 vehicles (amounts to swapping a few gaskets in the fuel lines and using a slightly different program in the computer) when nowhere near that much E85 to supply them is actually produced, and likely never will be in the vehicle's lifetimes. Another STUPID scam waste of resources.
This needs a little exposition. I'm aware of no such subsidies.
http://www.aa1car.com/library/e85.htm
Since at least the early 1990's US automakers have been given very ridiculously high exemptions to the CAFE standards for every "flex-fuel" vehicle they manufacture, I believe a credit to exempt 5 large gasoline vehicles from their fleet standard calculation for every E85-capable vehicle they sell. The result is a) much greater profits for the manufacturers than if they had to meet the CAFE standards b) a ridiculous 5 million "E85" vehicles presently on US highways with only about 1,000 service stations in the whole nation. Obviously a scam. No wonder the makers love ethanol. Without that exemption, last year EVERY US manufacturer would have had to pay many (more) millions in CAFE penalties.