 | The True Value of Energy is the Net Energy | The Oil Drum: Net Energy | New Perspectives on the Energy Return on (Energy) Investment (EROI) of Corn Ethanol: Part 2 of 2 |  |
New Perspectives on the Energy Return on (Energy) Investment (EROI) of Corn Ethanol: Part 1 of 2
Posted by David Murphy on July 26, 2010 - 10:30am in The Oil Drum: Net Energy
The following is the first of two posts based on a recent paper published under the same title in the journal Environment, Development, and Sustainability. The paper is divided into five sections, and to keep each post succinct, we have divided the paper into two posts. The first post will present the first two sections of the research and the second post will present the last three sections and the conclusions of the research.
Fig. 2. Map of the EROI of corn ethanol production for counties within states that produced at least 1% of the corn harvest in 2005, and biorefinery locations.
Introduction
Over the past decade there has been considerable debate on corn ethanol, most focused on whether it is a net energy yielder. The argument is generally that “if the Energy Return on Investment (EROI) of corn ethanol is positive then it should be pursued. On one side are Pimentel (2003) and Patzek (2004) who claim that corn ethanol has an EROI below one energy unit returned per energy unit invested, and on the other side are a number of studies claiming that the EROI is positive, reported variously as between 1.08 and 1.45 (Wang et al. 1997; Wang 2001; Shapouri et al. 2002; Graboski 2004; Shapouri 2004; Oliveira et al. 2005; Farrell et al. 2006; Wang et al. 2007). Even with numerous publications on this issue, disagreement remains as to whether corn ethanol is a net energy yielder.
We believe that focus within the literature on whether or not corn ethanol yields a positive net energy gain has diverted attention from more fundamental issues. The following is a brief description of some of these issues and how we addressed them in this research.
First, none of the major studies of the EROI of corn ethanol account for statistical error within their analysis. Error is associated with all measurements, and we should expect there to be error associated with EROI as well. Yet each of Farrell et al. (2006), Wang et al. (2007), Patzek (2004), Pimentel (2003), and Shapouri et al. (2002) fail to report even general error statistics associated with their calculation of EROI. Considering that the range of published values for the EROI of corn ethanol is so small (from 0.8 to 1.5) one would expect that even a relatively small amount of error could be meaningful. In response to these concerns, we performed an error analysis for the calculation of the EROI of corn ethanol.
Second, most analyses to date, including those referenced above, use optimal (i.e. Iowa) values for corn yield, fertilizer, and irrigation, despite the fact that each of these have large geographical (as well as other) variation. Because of this they fail to represent the variable nature of corn production across space, and by extension the subsequent variability in the EROI of corn ethanol. Our spatial analysis addressed this issue by examining the impacts of the natural geographic variability of corn inputs and yields on the EROI of corn ethanol production within the U.S.
Methods
We performed four major analyses in this research. The first was a meta-error analysis, in which we quantified the error associated with the calculation of EROI of corn ethanol based on various estimates of the energy inputs and outputs found in the literature. This analysis was based on the five main studies in corn ethanol: Wang et al. (1997), Shapouri et al. (2002), Pimentel (2003), Patzek (2004), and Farrell et al. (2006). The second was a spatial analysis of the EROI of corn ethanol. It is these two items that are discussed in Part 1.
The third was a sensitivity analysis; wherein we assess the degree to which corn yields and co-product credits impact the EROI of corn ethanol. Fourth, we combined the results of our EROI analysis with the data of biorefinery production to assess how much net energy was delivered to society by ethanol in 2009. These items are discussed in Part 2, which is a separate post.
Results
The results from our meta-error analysis indicated that the average EROI for corn ethanol was 1.07 with a standard error of 0.1. The 95% confidence interval was 1.07 ± 0.2. This result is interpreted as follows: there is a 95% chance that the true value of the EROI of corn ethanol is contained within 0.2 of 1.07. Alternatively, this calculation means that we are unable to assert whether the true value of the EROI of corn ethanol is greater than one.
EROI values calculated in the spatial analysis ranged from 0.36 in less optimal corn-growing areas, for example southern Texas, to 1.18 in optimal areas, for example Nebraska (Fig. 2). If we apply the same confidence calculated in the meta-error analysis to the results of the county EROI analysis, we find that none of the counties had an EROI that was high enough (1.20) to conclude that corn ethanol was produced at an energy profit. The average EROI value across all counties was 1.01, which was 0.06 less than the average calculated across the literature. This supports the idea that the literature used optimal values for corn ethanol inputs and outputs and as such has underestimated costs, overestimated benefits, or both. The distribution of EROI values followed a normal distribution skewed slightly left (Fig. 3). The vast majority of counties had EROIs that fell within either the 1.01–1.05 or 1.06–1.10 category.
Our spatial analysis indicated diminishing returns to EROI as distance from the Corn Belt increased. Counties with high EROI values were located in Nebraska and other Corn Belt states, while the lower EROI values were located in counties toward the northwest or southeast of the area analyzed, essentially northwestern South and North Dakota, and southeastern Texas, respectively (Fig. 2). As expected, the counties with EROI values within the top 10% had a combination of higher yields and lower agricultural inputs, while the counties within the lowest 10% of EROIs had lower yields and higher agricultural inputs on average (Fig. 4). We can conclude that even with a precision of ±0.2, 48 counties have EROIs below 1, as the EROI calculated for each of these counties was <0.80 (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3. Histogram of number of counties vs. EROI.
Fig. 4. Average values for spatial agricultural inputs and corn yield for counties with EROI values within the top and bottom 10% of all counties.
An analysis at the state-level indicated a similar geographic pattern, as the Corn Belt states, i.e. Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, had EROI values in the upper half of the states analyzed and states further from the optimal corn-growing lands were located in the bottom half, e.g. Kentucky, Texas, Missouri. EROIFG (EROI "Farm Gate") ranged from 3.81 to 6.25, while EROIRG (EROI "Refinery Gate") ranged from 0.96 to 1.14 (Table 4). Since much of the costs of the agricultural phase of corn production were constant across all states in this study (i.e. non-spatial), the range in EROIFG reflects the corn yields and fertilizer inputs in different environments rather than differences in the energy cost of planting and harvesting an acre of corn. On the other hand, the small range in EROIRG indicated that the off-farm costs dwarfed the energy costs on-farm. We calculated that 65% of the costs of producing ethanol from corn originated in the biorefinery phase (Fig. 5).
Table 4. Table 4. Summary statistics of the costs and gains of the agricultural phase of corn ethanol production for states that produced at least 1% of the 2005 corn harvest in the United States, ranked by decreasing EROIRG.
Fig. 5. Relative mix of inputs (spatial agricultural inputs, non-spatial agricultural inputs, biorefinery phase) and outputs (ethanol and co-products) of corn ethanol production.
According to Eq. 2, to deliver one liter of ethanol as net energy at an EROI of 1.18 (max found in the spatial analysis), 7.5 liter of ethanol must be produced; 1 liter as net energy and 6.5 liter (or its energy equivalent) to be reinvested to produce more ethanol. If we assume that the average we calculated across all counties (1.01) was the actual value for EROI, then producing ethanol is virtually a zero sum game; i.e. energy produced equals energy consumed.
Equation 2. Gross amount of energy required to deliver one unit of net energy = EROI/(EROI-1)
Applying Eq. 2 to our spatial analysis reveals other interesting results. Eight liters of ethanol must be produced to deliver one unit of net energy in Minnesota, using an EROI of 1.14. Another way, only 13% of the ethanol produced in Minnesota is net energy because the energy equivalent of 87% of the ethanol produced must be reinvested to produce more ethanol. The energy reinvested is in many forms, including, but not limited to, the fossil energy required to generate corn, fertilizer, lime, gasoline, natural gas, diesel, etc. For states with an EROI below 1.0 (Texas and Missouri), the production of ethanol is acting as a drain on the energy system, requiring more energy to produce ethanol than the energy contained in the ethanol product.
The EROI values for counties with biorefineries ranged from 0.64 in Stark, North Dakota, to 1.18 in Phillips, Kansas. Our analysis of 127 biorefineries indicated that of 31.6 billion liters of ethanol produced in the United States, only 1.6 billion liters were net energy (roughly 5%). As a point of comparison, of the 136 billion liters of gasoline consumed in 2009, roughly 122 billion liters (90%) were net energy, assuming that the 136 billion liters were produced at an EROI of 10 (Cleveland 2005). Adjusting for the lower energy content of ethanol (21.46 MJ/L etoh vs. 34.56 MJ/L gasoline = 0.62), we calculated that the net energy from ethanol is roughly 0.99 billion ‘‘gasoline-equivalent’’ liters.
Dividing the net energy supplied to society from ethanol by that from gasoline, we calculated that the supply of net energy to society from ethanol is only 0.8% of that from gasoline (0.99/122 = 0.8%). Thus comparing simply the gross production of gasoline-equivalent liters of both ethanol and gasoline is misleading, as one would conclude that the US production of ethanol is 14% of gasoline consumption (19.6/136 = 14%).
New Perspectives on the Energy Return on (Energy) Investment (EROI) of Corn Ethanol: Part 1 of 2
PDF version
244 comments
New Perspectives on the Energy Return on (Energy) Investment (EROI) of Corn Ethanol: Part 1 of 2
PDF version
244 comments
Contact
- theoildrumeroi at gmail dot com
Personnel
Archives
- October 2010 (1)
- September 2010 (1)
- August 2010 (1)
- July 2010 (1)
- June 2010 (1)
- April 2010 (1)
- March 2010 (2)
- January 2010 (1)
- July 2009 (1)
- June 2009 (1)
- May 2009 (2)
- April 2009 (1)
- March 2009 (1)
- February 2009 (1)
- January 2009 (2)
- December 2008 (1)
- November 2008 (1)
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
And even if the EROEI were 3-1, corn ethanol would not be worth the energy and resource investment.
Corn ethanol is a political boondoggle that diverts our attention away from better ways to begin dealing with our massive automobile conundrum.
Cap'n Daddy
______________________________________________________
And even if the EROEI were 3-1, corn ethanol would not be worth the energy and resource investment.
Corn ethanol is a political boondoggle that diverts our attention away from better ways to begin dealing with our massive automobile conundrum.
________________________________________________________
But energy and resource development isn't what is driving the ethanol industry. It is economics and not much else.
And I mean real economics not academic economics. US Farmers have been growing lots of corn for many many years. Most of those years without much profit. Now that farmers can grow corn profitably you are going to have a hard time making them stop. Also, farmers have invested heavily in ethanol plants you are going to have a hard time convincing them they should throw their investment away and go back to farming unprofitable crops.
Similarly the oil companies have become heavily invested in producing gasoline designed to be blended with ethanol. You are going to have a hard time convincing them to turn to less profitable endeavors also.
I think this may work to our advantage long term. Break even or even waste a little energy to keep the farming fleet in working condition now. Then, as world population continues to rise, and global warming continues, those farms are going to be producing something very valuable. You can't eat oil.
Break even or even waste a little energy to keep the farming fleet in working condition now.
All this means is we are running in place with a heavy dependence on depleting groundwater and phosphorus. And further subsidizing selected farm crops.
Then, as world population continues to rise, and global warming continues, those farms are going to be producing something very valuable.
The solution to higher world population is not taking land out of food production. And global warming will not be abated or avoided by continuing ethanol production. All we are doing is continuing to deplete our soils with industrial agriculture.
You can't eat oil
Getting rid of the ethanol requirement would free up millions of acres of land for food production, so that's not a problem. The future of farming will likely be much different that it is now, along the lines of 50 million farmers...
Please bear with this, it would be too hard to beam it down.
Requesting a free pass on the computing match, the point of relevance from the cross post is that the ethanol craft in the US would have remained vaporware without feed corn.
As someone who grows a lot of my own food in my 1/3 acre garden, I seriously doubt the Americans I see around here will ever become farmers. They just don't have it in them. And they would have to give up their corn-based diets too.
If they don't have jobs, what else are they going to do?...
http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2010/07/robots-in-farm-future.html
------------------------------------
But energy and resource development isn't what is driving the ethanol industry. It is economics and not much else.
----------------------------------------
And certainly that is true, Jinn. But is a false economics, supported by massive government subsidies, being spent under the guise of "doing something" about our energy woes while spinning our wheels. We were already subsidizing edible corn production before this began. At least someone, somewhere could eat it.
The above report says,"producing ethanol is virtually a zero sum game; i.e. energy produced equals energy consumed." So in the end we are mining our aquifer and the soil to get an product that isn't s good as gasoline. That is not "real" economics. It is political boondoggling.
BUT THAT SAID… your observations about agriculture being strung out on this are correct. We need to begin a gradual and supportive redirection of the farmers who have been lured into this swamp. They do not need to be dumped, jerked around and threatened with the loss of their livelihoods because they believed the clever sloganeering of the architects of this foolishness. If we started trying to unwind corn ethanol today, it might take a decade to do it fairly. Meanwhile our government budgets bleed money and we continue to misdirect our limited resources.
AND THAT SAID... You are also right, Jinn. It is a massive enterprise and it is not going to change anytime soon.
________________________________________________________
And certainly that is true, Jinn. But is a false economics, supported by massive government subsidies, being spent under the guise of "doing something" about our energy woes while spinning our wheels. We were already subsidizing edible corn production before this began. At least someone, somewhere could eat it.
_______________________________________________________
Except that none of what you write is true. The government subsidies for growing corn are now at an all time low. Look at the billions that were spent on corn subsidies 10-15 years ago. Ethanol production is a net savings for US taxpayers. There is at present no government subsidy or incentive that encourages a farmer to plant and harvest corn. They are doing it because for the first time in forty years farmers are making money growing and selling corn without any help from the government.
And it is not just US farmers that are seeing the economic benefits of ethanol. Farmers in third world countries all over the world are benefiting from higher grain prices.
If you want to end population growth and world hunger then stop financing the destruction of third world rural economies with subsidized US farm products.
_____________________________________________________
The government subsidies for growing corn are now at an all time low. Look at the billions that were spent on corn subsidies 10-15 years ago. Ethanol production is a net savings for US taxpayers. There is at present no government subsidy or incentive that encourages a farmer to plant and harvest corn.
____________________________________________________________
You are being disingenuous, Jinn. The taxpayers are pumping billions into tax credits for "blenders" and other industrial ethanol subsidies carved out by the agribidniss lobby, not to mention protective tariffs and government guaranteed production quotas. Corn growers are just as hung out on government support of the ethanol boondoggle and their Congresspeople know it ...which is why simple science showing it is a wasteful use of money and resource will do nothing to change it.
On another subject, you are right that global agribidniss and industrialized farming has been and is still largely destroying the lives and economies of the yeoman farmer, not just in the third world but everywhere - including France and until quite recently in the U.S.too.
Capn Daddy
Over here in Australia we have a better idea.
We don't try to make a profit from the land, we own it for the resale value. In effect the farm is an extension of the suburban real estate speculative bubble.
Why conquer Australia when you can buy it with worthless American greenbacks?
The Pollies (politicians or parrots, take your pick) are beginning to squawk about food security.
Looking at the dark shaded counties, it looks to me as if some of the counties with the best EROIs are irrigated counties (western Nebraska, northern Texas). It is hard to believe that this is a sustainable practice, regardless of what the EROI calculation seems to show.
It almost seems as though for a prospective analysis, these counties should be excluded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer
The ogallala aquifer, an underground reservoir something like the size of the great lakes from Texas panhandle up through Nebraska correlates strongly at a glance with the best areas for ethanol EROI.
It is clearly depleting and not sustainable. Without it, those counties cease to produce is the ways we have become accustomed.
bingo...BINGO HERE !!
To further support your comment KS, here is a copy of an old post of mine regarding the Ogallala:
A Clarifying point
The concept of depleting aquifers is not entirely accurate and could be misleading. Even the most famous depleting aquifer in the US (the Ogallala Aquifer) DOES have recharge points.The strata above most of the ‘non replenishable’ aquifers are non-porous or impermeable (also known as aquitard). What this does is limit the recharge rate of the saturated zone(s) as the recharge point for these types of aquifers are typically distant areas where these impermeable layers are not present, OR these depleting aquifers reside either wholly or mainly within arid regions so that the recharge rate is naturally low due to limited rainfall.
For the Ogallala these one of the most permeable recharge areas is the *ed* Playa lakes
The concept here (which should not be foreign to TOD readers) is about RATES. All aquifers have a yield which they can sustain. The question is whether the use is within these yield limits. Recent studies have estimated an average recharge rate for the entire High Plains region of approximately
0.5 of an inch per year, While the current pumping is causing a decline rate (estimated from graphs within
this report) of somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 foot per year.
If I pour a Chocolate Milkshake in a 10L bucket at a rate of 1L/minute my 10 friends can drink all the chocolate milkshake they want forever (at a rate of 0.1L/min each). However, if word gets out that I’m giving away Chocolate milkshake and 10 more people show up with their straws they have to make a choice. They can choose to either a)compete for the Milkshake and drink as fast as they can and eventually reach the
point they are fighting over the 1L/minute that I am pouring as soon as it hits the bucket, OR b)they can choose to reduce the rate at which they suck back the
Delicious Shake.
Some further comments by the USGS:
“Withdrawals greatly exceeded recharge in many areas, causing large water-level declines.”
“Agriculture is the dominant land use (54 percent) and is responsible for the widespread development of the High Plains aquifer. Major agricultural activities in the High Plains include dryland and irrigated agriculture, predominantly wheat, cotton, and corn. Of the total crop production in the United States, the High Plains aquifer area accounts for about 19 percent of the wheat, 19 percent of the cotton, 15 percent of the corn, and 3 percent of the sorghum. In addition, the region accounts for nearly 18 percent of the cattle in the United States and is rapidly becoming a center for swine production.”
http://co.water.usgs.gov/nawqa/hpgw/factsheets/DENNEHYFS1.html
Water tables and freshwater availability are yet another
Canary in the Coal Mine, indicating that BAU is unsustainable on so many levels.
Other sources:
http://www.co.portage.wi.us/Groundwater/undrstnd/aquifer.htm
http://techalive.mtu.edu/meec/module04/Basics3.htm
You correctly point out the limitations of these analysis Gail. These would be picked up in a Life Cycle Assessment.
Since EROEI is limited to energy, it misses other negative impacts such as mining. If water is extracted from an aquifer faster than it is being replenished, that is water mining. If nutrients are being depleted from the soils faster than they are being replenished, that is soil mining. Potash is being mined for fertilizer, etc.
Mining is inherently unsustainable if the thing being mined is finite.
Our food production system is unsustainable as it is. We don't need to hasten the inevitable food production problems by converting food into SUV fuel.
In my opinion, the only folks who benefit from ethanol-fuel are agribusiness executives, their lobbyists and the politicians whose pockets get lined.
Although I agree with Gail and the two commenters above about the renewability and sustainability of corn ethanol, let us not complain that a very good and tightly-focused scientific study does not also dispute all of the environmental hazards of our corn-ethanol delusion.
Advocates of corn ethanol have continued to dispute the science that challenges their boondoggle. Now that facade is ripped away. The energy science does not support corn ethanol. That alone is sufficient reason to begin unwinding the boondoggle. Corn ethanol is not even "running in place." It is a massive resource waste that does not deliver what it promises.
I have to wonder if the ongoing EROEI battle over Ethanol isn't tightly related to the old saw about Academia,
"Academic Disputes are so heated because the rewards are so small."
Ethanol becomes instantly contentious, and good scratching ground, while building a little Solar Heating into nearly everyone's roof is so clearly Net Positive, that it's simply a debate killer, and hence boring and off the table.
Sam Dan on Screenwriting,
"CONFLICT isn't the mustard of the sandwich, it's the corned beef.."
Absolutely. For the cost of this ethanol boondoggle we could a) install solar hot water heaters on half of all American homes, thus freeing up amazing amounts of natural gas on the market and then b) convert tons of cars to burn natural gas. That would be far more efficient, but man... how boring... and it's not going to line the pockets of anyone with lobbyists.
Well, maybe we just need to help the solar thermal industry get some lobbyists. ;-)
I like my corn ethanol aged in oak barrels for at least four years. You can get 20 miles out of me on bike for a pint. That would be a TinFoil estimate of 1 pint/ 20 miles or 160 mpg. Not bad except for the fact that such corn ethanol tends to cost around $60 gallon. $60 dollars to go 160 miles, I better stick to my Honda.
Most of the $60/gal are taxes which raises the question: What is the ratio of taxes on beverage alcohol vs the fuel ethanol subsidy? Is this a case of Jack Daniels subsidizing my fuel ethanol use?
The aged stuff is the problem. If you switch to Everclear 190 you should be able to double your mileage.
But with the increased zigging and zagging, the same effective distance would likely be the result...
Not if I fall off :) I stole some pure lab grade ethanol once from college and took it to a basketball game. You could not put enough Coke in it. That other stuff besides the ethanol matters.
It's been a long time since I was an undergraduate, but IIRC, you can cut Everclear (190 proof) with straight grape juice and almost completely cover up the taste. "Purple Passion" was popular with some because it was dirt cheap. I found it made parties fun because if a young woman thought that "See the blond over there? She's on her fourth Purple Passion and I'll bet you a nickel she does (some stupid thing) in the next five minutes" was an interesting proposition, she was worth talking to.
Yes, Everclear is much more tolerable than the lab stuff. If you get a chance try the lab stuff.
JUST BE CAREFUL!
Not necessarily disagreeing with your sentiments, but...
In fact EROI analysis could (and possibly should) include the energies used to obtain other resources (sustainable or not) or mitigate fouling. All of these activities require work to be done and that means using energy. Thus a wide boundary EROI would account for the energies needed to, say, pump water long distances or remediate waste sites.
Charlie Hall (and I presume David as well) have adopted the philosophy that if the narrow boundary EROI numbers are bad then that should be enough to warrant policy action. Widening the boundaries will only (and always) make the numbers worse, so in a sense, are unnecessary to have at hand to take action (like dropping corn ethanol). My own desire would be to see at least a few representative wide boundary EROI analyses done if only for scientific curiosity. However, I suspect that the wider the boundaries get the more horrifying the implications will be. My intuition is that we have some very nasty surprises in store for us, especially in the realm of so-called renewable sources.
Question Everything
George
the data on irrigation is not amenable to EROI analysis, so i would say that it represents potentially the biggest source of error in this analysis.
"Since EROEI is limited to energy, it misses other negative impacts such as mining."
"Since EROEI is limited to energy, it misses other positive impacts such as high-value byproducts."
The source of much of the disagreement is whether to, and how to include the value of the mash left over from the process, which is a high quality cattle feed. It's not energy ( except to the cattle) but it does have value. If you assume it's worth a lot, you get a high EROEI. If you assume it's not worth anything, you get a low EROEI.
If it's worth a lot, then we don't need any subsidies or fuel-blend mandates.
If it isn't, then corn-biofuel should die a deserved death.
The fact is the ethanol producers don't need any subsidies or fuel-blend mandates.
The fact is that the US govt limits how much ethanol can be blended with gasoline. If it didn't impose that limit there would likely be more ethanol in the fuel at your local gas pump today.
The problem with this entire EROI energy analysis is that it is nothing more than a stupid academic exercise that has nothing at all to do with reality.
The reality is that ethanol production is economically viable without any government help. The only thing the government is trying to do is to hold back production levels.
A farmer looks at economics he can't afford to care about the amount of energy he uses. A farmer might make a calculation that if he uses 50% less fuel he will get 10% reduction in his crop. Since 10% of his crop is more valuable to him than the cost of that fuel he will use the fuel. If the fuel and fertilizer were more expensive the farmer would make a different calculation and use much less. That is because these inputs are used to the point of diminishing returns. If petroleum were much more expensive, then crop production would be reduced but not anywhere near as much as the petroleum usage would be reduced. As the cost of petroleum increases the energy return on investment for ethanol will improve significantly.
And by the way if the cost of petroleum goes up every other energy source begins to look more attractive. In other words the whole game as far as the oil industry and its government lackeys is concerned is to keep the price of oil low to maintain market share. The fear is that once the cost of petroleum starts to spiral upwards all sorts of things will rush in to push it out of the market.
The government is not promoting ethanol it is in fact at this point in time doing exactly the opposite. What the government and the oil industry are promoting is gasoline. And to do that they need to keep the price at the pump low. And to keep the price low the oil industry needs an octane booster. Lead and MTBE are gone like the dodo bird, so ethanol is all the oil industry have left as an octane booster.
@PVGuy
Part 2 of this series includes an analysis of how the EROI of ethanol is impacted by different energy credits assigned to co-products.
@ Jinn
Please substantiate your claim with a reference.
Ibid.
I can't prove a negative. What is the basis for believing that corn grower's and ethanol producers are benefiting from tax credits that the oil companies receive?
It is easy to demonstrate that corn grower's associations have petitioned the government to eliminate the blender credits given to the oil companies. They seem to think it isn't doing them any good.
Any one who has been following ethanol in the news should be familiar with the fact that the government limits the amount of ethanol allowed to be mixed with gasoline and that the corn growers and ethanol producers have been petitioning the government for 2 years to lift the allowable limits because it has created an artificial ceiling on production.
Jinn (member for 3 days)
I begin to suspect you are an ethanol troll trying to do damage control. The number of half-truths you toss out are staggering.
There are billions in government subsidies for the ethanol boondoggle and it is going to the blenders as well as the oil companies with laws underwriting the mandated market stretching out to the 2030s, which keeps the farmers in the game because prices are propped up, protected from Brazilian competition, etc. etc. Ethanol is not “a free market,” nor is it wildly in demand without its government mandate… and beyond a 10 per cent blend it begins to ping a lot of auto engines without careful tuning, etc.
You further tip your hand by joining the trolls who attack the hard science of net energy. Too bad. EROEI scoffers are a part of furniture around here.
Gandhi said “First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you.” The ethanol lobby has a hammerlock on government, but this little website sure seems to make a lot of you guys nervous.
Let suppose I do work for the ethanol industry. What difference does that make?
What you say is still not true. You make up fantasy stories about world commodity trading, taxes and the way farming and engines work. You are simply out of touch with reality. Engines don't ping with more ethanol and Brazil has been importing ethanol from the US because they can't fulfill their own needs. And corn growers are making money from selling corn because there is a legitimate market for corn for the first time in 70 years.
The biggest growth in ethanol is export to other countries. And that is because the US government won't allow any more to be sold in the US and World demand for ethanol is growing rapidly. I suppose you think those foreign countries are buying US ethanol because the government is paying them to take the ethanol. There is no blender credit for ethanol sold to other countries. So how come there is so much of that going on?
http://www.farmanddairy.com/news/us-ethanol-exports-increasing/15069.html
http://www.wisconsinagconnection.com/story-national.php?Id=1165&yr=2010
Jinn said;
And that is because the US government won't allow any more to be sold in the US
This is patently untrue. The government has not stated an explicit limit to the amount of ethanol that can be sold. The ethanol industry can sell UMLIMITED quantities of E85 in the US.
They can sell ethanol for co-fueling of diesel engines.
They can sell ethanol for fueling gas turbines.
They can sell ethanol for home heating fuel.
There are many ways to sell ethanol. The only limit that currently exists is a maximum of 10% in ordinary gasoline, because no one can agree if ordinary engines are Ok with more.
There are many others ways to sell ethanol, the industry should be pursuing some of them, especially E85 and diesel co-fuelling.
As I said the biggest growth now is export to other countries.
But you started out with a false statement;
"the US government won't allow any more to be sold in the US"
Saying things like this is what loses you credibility on this forum.
Exporting ethanol is just stupid - the whole idea is to offset oil imports. If we export ethanol, then it is not displacing oil imports, it is actually increasing them (some oil is used to grow the corn, transport the ethanol etc).
I do not understand how the ethanol industry can honestly claim to be helping move toward energy independence when they export ethanol - it may be good business, but it is increasing oil import dependence.
if the ethanol industry is exporting, then it has no need for subsidy or mandate, as it has outgrown them both.
They should put their efforts into growing the market for E85 and diesel substitution, particularly in the corn states. If they can't get drivers in the corn belt to run on E85, then we should give up on ethanol right now.
_____________________________________________________________________
But you started out with a false statement;
"the US government won't allow any more to be sold in the US"
Saying things like this is what loses you credibility on this forum.
_____________________________________________________________________
You are taking words out of context. I was responding to the folks who repeat over and over that the federal government is promoting ethanol. The fact is the government is the biggest obstacle to the growth of the ethanol industry. The industry would be a lot bigger if the limits the government imposes would be lifted.
And no the whole idea of investing in ethanol production is not offset oil imports. The whole idea is to make money. People are claiming that ethanol is not economically viable and without government support it would not exist. The fact is the exact opposite is the truth. Ethanol production as a business is economically viable and it is only because the government is holding it back that it is not a bigger industry that it already is.
And there is no subsidy and mandate needed for ethanol to survive. That is just a fantasy in your in your head. There are no subsidies and mandates for exported ethanol. If Americans won't buy ethanol somebody else will. It makes a lot more sense for farmers to ship and sell their ethanol overseas then it does to ship corn overseas.
And there is no subsidy and mandate needed for ethanol to survive.
You should tell the RFA and NCGA, who are screaming that they need the subsidies to survive (never mind that they have a captive market with the mandates).
jinn, I was not taking out of context, you chose your words poorly. There are only two limits imposed by the fed gov on ethanol;
A limit on the total volume of CORN ethanol that will get the VEETC
A limit of 10% in normal gasoline
Neither of these equates to "gov won't allow any more ethanol to be sold". if you said that in any court or official hearing it would be thrown out. This is not a court or official hearing, but the statement is just as inaccurate.
I suspect the government would lift the 10% limit if they were satisfied it would not cause any vehicle problems. So far, the auto makers have refused to guarantee their engines - is that the government's fault? If they do lift the limit, and engine damage results, will the ethanol industry take responsibility?
The ethanol industry has not come out with an extensive, third party validated test program to show that higher blends will not damage engines. The burden of proof (and it is a burden) on this one lies squarely with the ethanol industry. make people want to use your product, and you will sell lots more of it. The ethanol industry's approach has been to force people to use their product - no wonder political support is waning. why should the taxpayers of the whole country subsides ethanol when the people of corn country are not even using it in much greater volume than anywhere else?
AS for exports, I have no problem with exporting ethanol, except when they are being subsidised to produce it in the first place. Personally, i think a better result for thew country is to import subsidised ethanol - let the Brazil govt subsidise american drivers! Sure beat importing oil from Saudi, Venzuela etc.
________________________________________________________________________
Neither of these equates to "gov won't allow any more ethanol to be sold". if you said that in any court or official hearing it would be thrown out. This is not a court or official hearing, but the statement is just as inaccurate.
__________________________________________________________________________
The statement is accurate. The US government is not promoting ethanol. The ethanol producers are shipping their product overseas because the government has effectively blocked any further market expansion in the US.
The US government is not promoting ethanol.
I think most of us would consider a rapidly growing RFS to be an example of huge government promotion of ethanol.
...the government has effectively blocked any further market expansion in the US.
There is nothing stopping POET, ADM, independent producers, etc. from building out E85 pumps and selling it across the Midwest. Zero. So you continue to spew misinformation and ensure that you will have zero credibility here. In fact, if they could produce E85 to be consistently competitive with gasoline, there is enough market in the Midwest to consume 3x the ethanol currently produced there.
What is the basis for believing that corn grower's and ethanol producers are benefiting from tax credits that the oil companies receive?
The fact that they are the ones who scream loudly when discussion turns to eliminating the subsidy:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100716/BUSINESS01/7160355/Eth...
Essentially the position I have been pushing for a long time. But they are a lonely voice:
Q.E.D. There you have most of the ethanol lobbies and the NCGA arguing to keep the subsidies. That would be odd if they weren't benefiting, don't you think?
Two sources of irrigation water in western Nebraska. Everyone hears about the Ogallala aquifer, of course, but fewer pay attention to the North and South Platte Rivers. Both branches of the river provide irrigation for significant areas. Both are subject to complicated legal agreements and court decisions that control the "operation" of the rivers. And "operation" is the proper term; for example, no natural flows are allowed in one section of the river bed, all the water is either retained in a reservoir or diverted into canals.
From North Platte, where the two tributaries join, much of the actual flow of water is underground. Those of you who have had the "opportunity" to drive I-80 between North Platte and Grand Island have seen evidence of the scale of the underground flow. Along the highway are dozens of small lakes. Each of those is an old gravel pit used to produce material for original construction of the highway. The water level reflects the top of the underlying water table. Technically, there's a slow current in those lakes as water enters at the upstream end and exits at the downstream end. In some places, the gravel bed is almost 150 feet deep, and is saturated.
mcain6925, thanks for the info.
What is the conclusion you draw about the rivers? Do you have a sense of whether they are being managed well, poorly or climate change is expected to alter their flows?
Those are complicated questions; the answers on management depend a lot on what you think the goals should be.
Thanks, the sheds light on the area.
It has been suggested that the cost of the dams that "tamed" the Platte was wildly disproportionate to the benefits both for flood control and for agriculture. Heavily subsidized water to open up lands to farming of crops that themselves are not economic without their own subsidies.
Entirely possible, although most of the dams were built so long ago that it's hard to say. In addition to irrigation and flood control, they generate a few hundred megawatts of electricity. The Upper Missouri River modifications are much more impressive in terms of size. For an extreme view, read Deborah and Frank Popper's essay "The Great Plains: From Dust to Dust". They assert that attempting to settle the Great Plains was/is "...the largest, longest-running agricultural and environmental miscalculation in American history...", and suggest letting the whole thing revert to a "Buffalo Commons". Growing up a Great-Plains kid leaves me with mixed opinions on the matter.
I find it interesting to compare a map of Great Plains depopulation:
with a map of the US wind power resources:
Pretty high degree of correlation. It raises some questions about the logistics of doing large-scale wind farming there.
Given the amount of energy input at the biorefinery, it looks like this is just a roundabout way to indirectly convert energy from another source (probably natural gas) into ethanol. It sort of reminds me of the Canadian tar sands, which are (at least to a significant extent) an indirect natural gas to oil conversion operation. (But judging by EROI, the tar sands are far more efficient.) I suppose you could fuel the biorefineries with cellulosic biomass, coal, nuclear, or anything else and effectively convert that into ethanol too.
But given that natural gas can be chemically built up into longer chain hydrocarbons and converted into fuel directly, wouldn't that be more efficient? It would probably be more environmentally friendly too, since you wouldn't be wasting all that water and land to do this conversion in such a roundabout way.
Or just make cars burn natural gas, which is already done in many countries and already done quite successfully for buses. That would be more efficient still, and NG-fueled engines last longer due to reduced wear which further reduces consumption by reducing "emergy" inputs.
The ethanol boondoggle reminds me of something I've thought for a long time: politicians should (with few exceptions) never be allowed within a thousand miles of a technical decision. It's not just that they're unqualified... they are... it's that they're "anti-qualified." The nature of the political process tends to lead to the worst technologies winning. The best technologies try to play on merit, while the worst (but lucrative for special interests, like ethanol) hire armies of lobbyists. Politics tends to pick technical losers.
What we need is this: a higher tax on oil, and a tax credit to encourage development of anything that isn't a carbon-based fossil fuel. Politicians should never pick winners. Let them just set up the playing field to encourage migration away from fossil fuels and then let the market figure out what works best. I doubt the market would pick ethanol.
The objectives of the corn ethanol program seem to be:
Net energy return? Anything close to 1 is OK.
Not ok for anyone who buys food at a grocery store.
Widespread impact - even upon availability and price of rice in Asia. The majority pay more for food, at home and abroad, so a minority gain - another case of eg 100 people losing a dollar each so one person can make 10 (the person who makes ten makes contributions to re-election, hires lobbyists through industry groups, etc).
The price of the corn paid to the farmer is a miniscule fraction of the price of a box of corn flakes or a pound of steak. If the price of corn rises significantly, the corn ethanol is not competitive, even on marginal economics of biorefining, and the biorefiners stop producing ethanol.
Not ok for anyone who buys food at a grocery store.
Widespread impact - even upon availability and price of rice in Asia.
Yes this is all true. But these are not bad things.
This year more rice is being grown in Asia by Asians. Asian, African and South American rural economies are beginning to see a chance of gaining more control of their own ag production and hopefully will continue to free themselves from the neocolonialism that Wesrtern subsidized agriculture has imposed on them. That is a very positive impact unless you like to see 3rd world people doomed to feudalistic subsistence economies.
I thought with catalytic converters, we don't really need MTBE any more. Elimination of MTBE was an excuse to begin with, but it went away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methyl_tert-butyl_ether#Alternatives
Clear as mud to me. But catalytic converters became mandatory beginning in the 1970's IIRC. The restrictions on MTBE came in the past decade. So it must be more than just a cat. Seems one needs an oxygenate or a "high-quality fuel."
MTBE and other oxygenates, such as ethanol, raise the octane number, but more importantly they control carbon monoxide emissions. Various jurisdictions require oxygenated gasoline, especially in the winter time as part of the anti-pollution regulations. The problem is that MTBE releases into the environment are a source of ground water pollution, while only a small minority mind having ethanol in their water.
State Winter Oxygenated Fuel Program Requirements for Attainment or Maintenance of CO NAAQS
There seems to be a growing body of research that suggests the benefits of oxygenated fuels are declining with time. Contemporary computer controls for ignition timing and fuel injection with the appropriate sensors, combined with catalytic converters in the exhaust stream, produce the same low level of emissions with both regular and oxygenated gasoline blends, except for the first few minutes of operation. At least some analysts have suggested that areas that require oxygenated fuels would get more bang for the buck if the fuel price differential were used to repair or replace the oldest vehicles.
I think you are confusing MTBE with Tetra-ethyl-lead, a very different substance that was removed from gasoline in the early 70s so that the catalytic converters would work without fouling.
The lead was there to raise the octane rating of gasoline thereby enabling higher compression ratios (thus better performing engines). The MTBE is a later additive to improve air quality. It became a bad actor when it was found to contaminate ground water.
MTBE was used to replace lead as an octane booster. Lead was pushed out of the gasoline supply mostly because the catalytic converter would not work with lead in the gasoline and the oil industry had developed MTBE (a petroleum product) which was more profitable to manufacture than lead additives. The environment wasn't much of a consideration in these decisions since it is evident that MTBE is more harmful than lead.
You might wonder why the oil industry needs an octane booster. Why don't they just produce 87+ octane fuel instead of making mostly 83-84 octane fuel and then adding an octane booster additive to that. The answer is money (lots of money).
Octane rating is only a measure of the fuel's tendency to burn in a controlled manner, rather than exploding in an uncontrolled manner. Where octane is raised by blending in ethanol, energy content per volume is reduced. Which is why you get LESS gas mileage on pump gas with Ethanol.
IF as you say it's a matter of money to the oil industry, they should in fact add MORE ethanol (Ethanol's RON is 129 116 MON ), it would get the octane up like you want, it's cheap to make due to subsidies and they can get more money for it and it costs less to make and they'd sell MORE of it since mileage wouldn't be as good.
The ONLY reason you need higher octane fuel is you drive a car with a higher engine compression to get more Horsepower and it doesn't have an anti-knock sensor that retards timing (and hence HP) to prevent detonation and massive engine damage.
Simply put there isn't the demand for that much High-Octane fuel.If they blend other additives that boost octane yet don't cut into mileage such as toluene, benzene and ETBE it costs more as those chemicals are more expensive to produce and if used in gas they are being taken away as feedstocks for other more profitable chemicals. So, yes it is a matter of money but not in the way you imply.
All the gasoline being sold in the US is high octane fuel. That is, it is much higher octane than what a refinery could produce by simplest and cheapest refining process.
US law says they are not allowed by law to blend more than 10% ethanol for regular grades of gasoline. And they are not allowed by law to sell at the pump less than 87 octane (except a few high elevation cities where 86 octane is allowed).
Increasing octane to meet the minimum legal standard is a matter of money and energy to an oil refiners.
If the oil companies had their way they would sell you 80 octane fuel and doing that would greatly increase their profits (assuming people would be willing to purchase low octane gasoline at the same price and quantity). The extra profits would come from needing fewer barrels of oil to make the same amount of product and much less capital, labor and operating costs to refine it.
You aren't making ANY sense. The octane of "Gasoline" as it comes right out of the fractionation and distillation process can be controlled in a lot of different ways. It's doesn't have to be "Low" octane, it can be anything they want it to be depending on the feedstock makeup and prices, the market for gasoline versus diesel vs heating oil vs chemicals, etc. It's all market driven.
It does NOT take any more or less oil to produce 80 octane gas. Technically Gasoline is a range of hydrocarbons from C6-C9, then other chemicals are added (detergents, octane boost, color, stabilizers, etc).. A refinery can chose to make crude into gasoline or break it down to smaller units or build it up and make diesel/heating oil (C10-C12) depending on markets and margins. Refining is high volume, low margin and very competitive. All gasoline at teh pump is NOT the same even w/o ETOH. .Using ETOH means they use less of the CRUDE to get the same octane gasoline rating and overall volume of gasoline meaning that crude can go to other uses such as diesel where demand is growing and margins are better,
If the Gov't didnt limit the Ethanol content we'd see 100% Ethanol (they have this in Brazil) which is a very cheap fuel but it doesn't contain the energy content of gasoline (simple chemistry 101 tells you that). Pump gas is limited to 10% ethanol NOT for cost control but for the fact that a lot of cars fuel systems can't handle the characteristics of ETOH in any higher concentration. Any car past about 10 yrs ago also wouldn't have the complex electronics and engine features to run well on ETOH anyhow.
ETOH is at BEST a breakeven fuel as the studies have show EXCEPT in certain markets where it can be produced cheaply. But to get that cheap ETOH to a location it can be sold or blended into gasoline in bulk and then distributed widely adds transportation costs and energy consumption into the equation, pushing the net energy margins even lower.
It doesn't make sense to you because you don't understand refinery economics.
Sure a refinery can rearrange the hydrocarbon molecules into any hydrocarbon they want to as long as they are willing to expend enough time, energy, manpower and equipment to do it. The reality is it takes significantly more processing, more time and more energy to produce 87 octane gasoline than it does to produce 80 octane gasoline. And where does the energy come from - it comes from petroleum.
When you produce a mix of product that consumes lots of energy you use up more of the petroleum in processing than if you produce a mix that does not consume so much energy. If refiners had to boost octane by processing there costs would go up significantly and the amount of product produced per barrel goes down because some of the petroleum is consumed to provide the processing energy.
If refiners were able to boost octane without significant cost and energy usage there would be no market for ethanol.
Cars can handle ethanol blends a lot better than they can MTBE blends that were used in the 80's and 90's. Some refiners were adding 20% MTBE before MTBE was banned.
jinn,
20 percent MTBE?
I do believe you need to sleep of a close encounter with a considerable quantity of the ethanol you are so fond of.
15% MTBE was the typical amount being added to gasoline in the 90's, but some refineries did add more.
Per the EIA MTBE production and finished Gasoline production xl spread sheets.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/PET_PNP_OXY_DC_NUS_MBBL_M.htm
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip_gasoline.html
The year 2000 seems to be the year of Max MTBE production 77,460,000 barrels that same year finished gasoline production was 2,993,802,000 barrels. So in 2000 MTBE production was equal to 2.5% of gasoline production. If it was mixed at your stated rate of 15% it was only mixed with 16.6% of all finished gasoline.
Your comments are irrelevant to what was being discussed. The claim was that engines can't take higher than 10% ethanol. MTBE is worse than ethanol in respect to the objections that was made and yet has been used in higher concentrations 15 years ago.
BTW, MTBE production was often blended at the refinery where it served the purpose of an octane booster. Accurate reporting and accounting of MTBE content in gasoline tended to be only when and where MTBE was required to be added as an oxygenate (i.e. gas being sold as reformulated gasoline) which was mandated at 15% in winter months in certain areas of the country that were targeted by the EPA for smog control.
"which was mandated at 15% in winter months in certain areas of the country that were targeted by the EPA for smog control."
Show me a ref for this mandate. Everything I have seen is 11.2% MTBE in 33% of gas sales in 2000.
Look up how much MTBE is required to achieve the 2.7% oxygen mandate
http://www.pirinc.org/download/mtbeatcenterstage.pdf
If refiners were able to boost octane without significant cost and energy usage there would be no market for ethanol.
They can. And I assure you I understand refinery economics, as the economic group was the group I worked in at a refinery. Further, I blended gasoline. I could make 87 octane gasoline all day long without octane boosters. I could make 91 octane gasoline with no boosters. Several blending components have very high octane numbers, and you just blend them in to meet the vapor pressure and octane requirements. No ethanol needed for that.
When did I say you couldn't make 87 octane gas without ethanol?
You said they couldn't boost octane "without significant cost and energy usage." Presumable you mean relative to ethanol. Straight run gasoline gets boosted substantially - in fact I can easily take it to 91 octane - without using any octane boosters and at a lower cost than from using ethanol.
That statement makes it apparent you have no clue about the economics involved. The arithmetic is pretty simple. It is grade school stuff.
Look at the terminal spot prices for 91 octane E0 gasoline and look at the price of 84 octane (low grade) E0 gasoline that is intended to be blended with ethanol (to produce E10 gasoline that you find at most gas pumps today). To replace the 10% ethanol with E0 91 octane (high grade) would require blending about 30% high grade to low grade. The equation is simple. It takes .7 * 84 octane + .3 * 91 octane to make 87 octane E0 gasoline.
Do the math and E10 fuel comes out ahead in most of the US.
But that doesn't even begin to tell the whole story. The price of E0 91 octane gas today is way below what it would if you removed all ethanol from the supply system.
Read the above statement again if it did register.
If you were to produce all the 87 octane gas without any octane booster to add to it, the US refinery industry would need to produce the equivalent of more than 30 billion barrels per year of E0 91 octane above what they now produce. In other words without ethanol they would need to make 10 billion barrels more E0 gasoline but also modify their production capability so that 30 billion more barrels of 91 octane were produced. This would need to be done to produce the same amount of 87 octane fuel that is now being sold.
Squeezing that much more high octane components out of the production stream can be done, but with great difficulty and expense (and energy input). The effect of this huge shift in demand on the refineries for more high octane components would result in a dramatic increase in the price of those higher octane components. It has been estimate that the net result in terms of the price of gasoline (this is in a scenario where all ethanol disappeared) would be around 50 cents a gallon at the gas pump.
Of course a 50 cent increase in price at the pump would depress gasoline sales. And the decrease in demand would probably be at least 10%. The oil industry understands these economics. They understand that it is better to lose 10% sales to ethanol up front than to start losing sales due to the attrition of decreasing demand due to people deciding to use less fuel.
That statement makes it apparent you have no clue about the economics involved. The arithmetic is pretty simple. It is grade school stuff.
Given that I rann the economic models for the refinery during the most profitable years in the refinery's history, I submit that I know far more about the economics than a layman like yourself. I actually got paid to understand the economics. I don't have to rely on spot prices for my information; I know the costs, which are not always reflected in the spot prices. To an outsider, it may seem like grade school stuff. Then again, I am talking to the guy who thinks the U.S. government not only doesn't promote ethanol, but they hold it back. LOL.
To replace the 10% ethanol with E0 91 octane (high grade) would require blending about 30% high grade to low grade. The equation is simple.
That's not what you would do at all. It might be in Simpletown, but real refinery economics have many more layers of the onion than you appreciate. My advice is that instead of pontificating on things you clearly know nothing about, stick to something you actually know.
It has been estimate that the net result in terms of the price of gasoline (this is in a scenario where all ethanol disappeared) would be around 50 cents a gallon at the gas pump.
I am aware of this highly flawed study which has received a great deal of criticism from economists about the assumptions involved.
You haven't supported a single claim you make with anything resembling real analysis. I don't know about any one else, but hand waving and chest thumping aren't going to make me believe what you say.
Yes I presented it as a simpleton model. The simple fact is in all its history the refining industry has never gotten along without adding a significant octane booster. So your claim "they could simply get all the octane they ever need real easy with no extra expense whenever they wanted to" rings a little hollow.
If it is so easy and cheap for the industry to produce all the needed octane regular and premium gasoline by just rearranging molecules from a barrel of oil, why did they poison us with lead and then poison us with MTBE fdor all those years? How come foreign countries purchasing millions of gallons of ethanol from the US as an octane booster. Did someone forget to tell them about refinery economics?
The simple fact is that removing all ethanol would pretty tremendous load on the US refining industry to produce a lot more high octane components and that would definitely shift the price of regular and premium gasoline upward.
How much the pricing would change is a legitimate question. But any one who claims there would be no effect on price is clearly speaking out of ignorance.
It seems to me that to do an analysis such as this correctly, one would really have to know on a county by country basis what percentage of corn is irrigated, and what the energy inputs for irrigated fields are. Or if one doesn't know the percentage by county, one would at least need counties split into "irrigated" and "non-irrigated".
If a person just takes a statewide "average energy from irrigation" charge, and applies it to all counties in the state, the irrigated counties in a state will look very good on an EROI basis, while the non-irrigated counties will look very bad. For example, such an approach would make the irrigated counties up in Northern Texas look much better than the other counties, whether they were, in fact or not.
What was the approach used in this study, Dave? It looks to me like it might be a statewide approach.
Gail,
It was definitely a state-wide approach from the cost side. I was able to get state data only for fertilizers, lime, and irrigation. I have county data for yield.
The main reason EROEI is junk science is the reification of the the abstraction: energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification
Energy as used in EROEI is poorly defined. Is it renewable or not?
What is its form? Is it solid, liquid, gas or electrical or some other form such magnetic or gravitational? We do not know. It matters.
Energy is an abstraction. Treating it like it is concrete is called reification. It is a major logic fallacy. It renders all the conclusions no matter how meticulously data is gathered and analyzed to be false.
EROEI on corn ethanol is a meaningless concept. The whole article and those who think EROEI means anything are delusional.
Logic has rules. Reams of data and analysis that omit valid logic mean nothing.
In order for an argument to be true it must be both mathematically true and logically true. EROEI is not logically valid.
Therefore arguments based on it are false.
> Energy is an abstraction.
I disagree with statements like the above; I can calculate the energy of the chemical bonds before and after. And in breaking them I can measure the dT rise of a known mass. (I will assume everything takes place at the same altitude so we can ignore a net increase of gravitational potential!)
I invite you to expound on the logical delusion you feel we all suffer from.
Dan
Dan, because he doesn't understand the concept, x has been diverting discussions on EROEI as long as I've seen him on this board.
Please, just let his comment pass. It will make this thread more useful to all of us if you do.
I think the point he is trying to make (over and over) is really about contextually appropriate boundary conditions for calculating EROEI of a given fuel/process.
He then always blankets conversations on EROEI with the same point especially bio fuels.
if he would come out with meaningful boundary conditions that he approves of it would help
In my opinion, x is not interested in thinking deeply enough about the issue to suggest boundary conditions. Calling energy an abstraction is really a form of scientific denial akin to being a strong creationist.
if that is the case I have no idea what his point is. The term abstraction being applied to energy is a reasonable line of inquiry and debate I suppose in a philosophical sense..
we affix the attribute of energy to things because it is convenient to do so even if the internal logic stands up to severe scrutiny.. however to just say that as thou there is some alternative more thorough perspective is plain weird
it would appear he has got himself trapped in some sort of mess
Good, you're catching on. He doesn't have one. ;-)
IIRC x is a corn farmer. Perhaps you could say his point is "Discussion of the low EROI of my livelihood makes me uncomfortable. Please stop discussing it."
__________________________________________________
IRC x is a corn farmer. Perhaps you could say his point is "Discussion of the low EROI of my livelihood makes me uncomfortable. Please stop discussing it."
__________________________________________________
Your discussion would make any corn farmer uncomfortable. Any corn farmer would be appalled at the ignorance upon which you base your pontifications.
FYI Corn farmers and ethanol producer are businesses they make decisions based on economics not on how much energy is consumed. TPTB have made energy cheap and abundantly available. That effectively mandates that any business run for profit is going to be found to energy inefficient If it is scrutinized.
You guys think switch grass is a wonderful energy source because it contains cellulose, but at the same time you completely ignore the billions of tons of cellulose in the corn crop. According to your analysis the energy in a crop that isn't being grown somehow exists but the same form of energy in a crop that is being grown doesn't exist. And then you wonder why you are being called illogical.
In theory farms and ethanol production facility can be entirely self contained. That might mean the farmers would set aside 20%-30% of their land to grow fuel to run tractors and equipment and the ethanol production facilities would use the corn stalks and corn cobs to produce the heat energy needed to process ethanol. But that complete avoidance of petroleum energy aint going to happen unless the farmer and ethanol producer are willing to exist with essentially no monetary income. Under that scheme they are barely going to generate enough income to make tax and mortgage payments.
It simply isn't economically viable to be energy efficient. That doesn't mean it can't be done. The Amish do it on a fairly large scale but very few people are willing to live like that.
Jinn,
I rather doubt you are a farmer, or a corn farmer either. You may garden.
Farmers are business men? Somewhat.
But you can take this to the bank and all my farmer friends and relatives who farm agree that without the ag subsidies they would NOT BE IN THE FARM BUSINESS.
They would farm, maybe go back to cattle,if they had the time and money to put the fencing back up and dig all the new ponds that were dozed down as well as the dozed down fences.
When an 'operator',defined as one who rents you fields or sharecrops them, first gets on your land the first order of business is to bulldoze all the fences down , push them in the pond after breaking the dam and then cover up the pond. The reason is that this keeps you from going back to cattle and he says 'well gives you more land for us to grow crops on'....Hah!
They FARM the FSA just a hard as they farm the land. Without the subsides they would not be able to continue on. The prices are just not going to make it possible. Not with the cost of 'inputs'.
I know of one close by 'operator' who gets near a million each year. Its available on the internet if you know where to look , or once was.
I live in corn country. Beans and wheat in a 3 crop/2 year rotation. I work on farm equipment and drive them when I chose to. All my friends are large farmers, 3,000 acres or more, some lots more. I am related to most. I know exactly how it works.
Yes many here on TOD have no clue whatsoever. I will agree with that.
As to ethanol plants? Most in this area and other areas have shut down. Some never really got started. There is ZERO corn here going to feed any ethanol plants.
I think its a dead issue and should be.
YMMV and likely does. I am in Illinois. Where are you?
No I'm not farming and haven't for many years. And yes, the farmers you know would probably go out of business without subsidies. But not all farmers would go out of business. Maybe only half the farmers would go under if the subsidies ended. But that only illustrates how much production farmers are growing that nobody really wants or needs.
If you think none of the corn in Illinois is going to ethanol or that none of it in your area goes to ethanol, you are clearly in the dark.
And yes many ethanol plants that were going to be built have been abandoned and the farmers that put up the money to build those plants may well not be happy about what happened to their investment. The ethanol plant construction has come to a halt because the market is saturated. The US government limits how much ethanol can be added to gasoline to 10% and until that limit is lifted the market can't grow much larger inside the US. The only available expansion in the ethanol market is by export to other countries. That hardly means ethanol is dead. It does mean that any further growth is being blocked by the government.
And yes growing vast amounts of corn to produce ethanol may be stupid.
But consider the alternative, which is far more stupid:
Make very fatty beef,chicken and pig meat.
Make highly sweetened soft drinks
Put third world farmers out of business by flooding their markets.
Propping up third world dictators by financing them with US commodities.
Converting corn to ethanol means reduction in those activities that are really really really stupid.
If you aren't willing to first put half the farmers out of business then you need to come up with something that is less stupid than poisoning the world as the method of disposing of the surplus those extra farmers produce.
Many of those farmers are going to go out of business anyway as the funding that props them up starts to decline and the input markets whipsaw them as oil declines.
It isn't a pleasant situation but there are many unsustainable systems that we've set up that will, by definition, come to an end. In the best of all worlds, the farmers who are on the edge would have some foreknowledge and could plan to wind down their operations as best as possible on their terms.
Was your reply a reply to my comment? Can you point to some of my "pontifications"?
Again, were you talking to me? Did I ever say anything about switch grass in my life?
Please make sure your replies are actually replies to the comment you're replying to, or I'll flag them as inappropriate.
Go ahead flag my comments however you wish.
I was replying to this statement.
_________________________________________________
IRC x is a corn farmer. Perhaps you could say his point is "Discussion of the low EROI of my livelihood makes me uncomfortable. Please stop discussing it."
____________________________________________________
I was explaining why the "discussion" would would be appalling to any corn farmer because the "discussion" contained inaccurate facts about farming.
If you don't feel that you were a participant in that "discussion", and if you don't want to be associated with the views and assumptions expressed in the "discussion" then I suggest you state that clearly.
I was not a participant in that discussion. Go back and look at my other comments and when I made them.
According to common courtesy, it's not my responsibility to state which views I don't associate with. It's your responsibility to not attribute views to me that are not reasonable extrapolations of what I myself have said. You attributed to me certain views about switch grass. I don't hold those views. That right there tells you where you went wrong.
The logical delusion would be that it is evident you know very little about farming. An analysis of farming without any understanding of how it works is like blind men poking elephants
So E=mc^2 is reification and is meaningless? I thought energy was an absolutely solid concept in physics with a very well defined objective meaning.
There is a bit of truth in what you are saying though. The form of energy does matter. We don't really have an energy crisis per se... there is tons of energy available in the forms of solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear. What we really have is an energy storage and distribution crisis. We are dependent on oil not because it's the only source of energy but because oil is so unique in its compactness and transportability.
That means that to some extent things like thorium reactors or high altitude wind or smart grids are meaningless for the oil problem if we can't figure out a way to get that energy into a form that we can drive around with in cars or power long distance shipping networks with. In that sense, the form of energy is really really important.
Spot on: the form of transportation fuels is very important and a huge amount of the world's wealth is tied up in the machines to distribute and use them.
BTW did you read the thorium reactor article in the latest issue of American Scientist?
http://www.americanscientist.org/my_amsci/restricted.aspx?act=pdf&id=367...
(apologies if this takes the discussion off-topic)
Dan
Ah were it so reducible to a good sounding sound bite. But it isn't. The crisis is in energy capture and conversion (storage and distribution are problems but not the primary ones). The raw source of energy has to be at a sufficiently high potential compared to the sum of intermediary sinks (like conversion efficiencies) and the ultimate use sink. The capture and conversion equipment has to be sufficiently effective to produce a significant amount of energy to drive the work processes we deem of value.
We might be bathed in energy but it is of no use whatever unless we can find a way to capture and convert it to usable forms (exergy) with suitable power ratings.
I agree with your last statement, but for the above reasons.
Question Everything
George
Please do not feed the trolls. Disregard this comment and move on. It might be someone without a clue, or it might be a shill for biofuels. Either way, ignore it and move on. Also, learn to recognize trolls before the signal to noise ration gets worse..
Regards,
Bruce
Personally, I don't mind our little ritual with x here on TOD. For anyone who might be tempted to think like him, we routinely get at least one decent explication of our scientific understanding of energy in response.
Also, I don't think it's entirely fair to call x a troll. A true troll keeps coming back, responding to every reply with whatever will keep the noise going. IME, x never follows up on his initial comment.
X is a guy trained in business terms, and his arguments can be seen as making sense in terms of dollars and cents.
To him a btu of electrical energy, or ethanol energy , is not equal to a btu of coal energy.He is thinking in terms of actually using the energy in existing infrastructure, and makes his calculations based on energy utility in terms of dollars and cents than actual energy measured in units such as foot pounds or watt hours.
At least this is what he appears top me to be doing.
If coal is cheap enough, and gasoline is expensive enough, it is profitable to manufacture synthetic gasoline-even if fifty percent of the energy content of the coal is wasted in the process.
In X's world model, the monetary VALUE or economic UTILITY of the energy contained in the synthetic gasoline more than offsets the synthetic gasoline's lesser energy content, in comparision to the coal used to manufacture it.
There is a certain amount of practical common sense involved in such arguments, so long as coal is truly plentiful and cheap-disregarding the externalities of synthetic gasoline of course.
His reasoning is ok;it's just that he is using different asumptions and definitions than everybody else.
Getting him to understand and accept the commonly accepted definitions used by everybody else here and in the rest of the TECHNICALLY educated world looks like a lost cause.
ofm,
Sure, economics is not the same as physics. And perhaps that is a valid criticism of David Murphy's EROI methodology, but that's not the reasoning x is employing...because that would require x to admit that there is (at least theoretically) a valid EROEI methodology.
We're getting philosophical here (a pejorative in some cultures! ...and I was even a philosophy major), but to me this is a contradiction. Not using commonly accepted definitions isn't reasonable. If by "reasoning" you mean strictly logical consistency, it is possible to be logically consistent without using accepted definitions. But I don't think x has been logically consistent over his various posts either.
The EROI of ethanol is a dead issue -- later papers by Patzek, Pimentel, and other researchers, not cited by David Murphy, plus the tremendous ecological destructiveness of making ethanol and the likely failures along the complete life cycle from planting to harvest, storage, and the EROI of transport to the biofuel factories which have to be 1/3 as large as would be ideal for ideal economies of scale or the area that biomass is delivered from is so large that more fossil fuels are used to deliver the biomass than can ever be extracted from it, and so much more that's not counted in any "EROI" analysis, i.e. "Peak Soil" which I wrote years http://www.energyskeptic.com/Peak_Soil.htm -- has completely convinced scientists working on biofuels that ethanol is not the way to go. All of the research at U.C. Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, and other institutions are focused on producing butanol and other fossil-fuel like liquids that can be directly used in existing combustion engines.
The issue of EROI of ethanol is dead. Take away the ethanol subsidies and all of the ethanol plants would shut down.
Just released, the 2008 Energy balance of corn ethanol. The issue is clearly not dead.
http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/2008Ethanol_June_final.pdf
Dave
It might not be dead, but the estimates I've seen range from "negative EROEI" to "pathetic 1-2X EROEI." Move along, nothing to see here. Almost everything else on the post-oil energy source platter is better.
I agree that you and I think the issue is settled, but billions are still being spent to fund ethanol. Maybe they are not hearing this argument and we need a new strategy, but I don't think we should give up the fight...
It seems to me that a big piece of the issue is what energy inputs are measured to begin with. The government study you linked to purports to show an EROI of 2.3. Part of the problem is that they leave out the energy of the building the plant. There is also a question if they include enough energy for the hybridized seed.
It probably would be possible to do some comparisons of the new Government report assumptions with Table 2 and Table 4 data from your article.
There's so much money to be made, and so many lobbyists paid by the corn and oil industries (oil companies are reimbursed for adding ethanol to gasoline) that non-peer reviewed junk science will continue to be produced to justify subsidies and jobs.
In the unlikely event a politician or staff member reads the USDA junk science, they are likely to be scientifically illiterate. They'll not only will believe it, but won't have a clue there are other points of view. As Chris Mooney makes clear in "Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future", we desperately need scientists to educate political leaders and the public.
Only geeks get EROI, so I've come to believe it's not a great way to convince people. The boundaries will always be fought over, the data debated and disagreed about. But the dead zone in the gulf from too much fertilizer run-off from corn, the burning of rainforests to grow palm oil, the depletion of top soil, the need for all biomass to be returned to the soil to grow crops sustainably, that soil stores more carbon than the air or oceans, and so on -- that's easier to understand. Though if there are any lobbyists making the rounds with these arguments against ethanol, I'll bet they're outnumbered 10 to 1 or more by corn and oil lobbyists who contribute far more to re-election campaigns.
So bottom line, ethanol isn't going away unless there's an energy crisis with sky-high fuel prices AND the public somehow finds out that the ethanol component is an even more costly part of fuel than the gasoline and demands it be removed.
As all levels of government go bankrupt, social security, health care, food stamps, unemployment checks, energy efficiency research, etc., will be cut long before the ethanol subsidies are removed.
So hey, get with the corporate program! The pharmaceutical industry is great at blocking any legislation that might impact their bottom line (see Reding's "Methland: The Death and Life of an American Small Town"), so just take some crystal meth and try to enjoy your debt slavery (a much cheaper way to enslave people than actually providing food and shelter).
I wish Oreskes & Conway's excellent "Merchants of Doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming" could have included ethanol, but even though ethanol isn't mentioned, that industry is pretty much following the same script.
My rep. claimed that he sensed very little enthusiasm for ethanol subsidies among his colleagues.
I think if everyone (except x, of course) who read or posts on this thread contacted their legislators and got three or four other people to do the same, we may be able to end the ethanol subsidies.
EROEI [neglecting solar energy input]
Because photosynthesis only captures 1 or 2 percent.
More gubberish from the ethanauts.
Right now ethanol is an oxygenate for gasoline. Get rid of it and you'd be back to ground poisoning MTBE, a natural gas
product with a negative EROI(assuming a btu of natural gas is equal to a btu of oil).
This is why there is Big Oil's blender credit. With the mandate in place they'll have to buy ethanol and eat the difference(or pass it on to consumers--it matters little which).
IF the government subsidies pay $1.8 per gallon for ethanol and we use E10, that's 18 cents added cost to a gallon of gasohol for Big Oil or consumers to pay--wow.
Then there's the corn farmers. They produce animal feed and ethanol. Stop producing ethanol and the market would be flooded with feed corn nobody wants.
Lots of farmers go bankrupt but OTOH less natural gas is used and we need to import more foreign oil.
Stopping ethanol would sink the farm economy for NO REASON.
Then there's Mr. Murphy's usual EROI fuzzy math. You have to throw out the amateur studies of Padzek(a civil engineer)
and Pimental(entymologist)which will raise the average to well over 1.
Of course as a pure energy crop corn ethanol has an EROI of a little over 1. That means that we input natural gas or coal into the biorefinery and get out
a product that runs like gasoline.
GTL and CTL also can produce 'gasoline' with an EROI of .5-.6 if you consider that a btu of natural gas is equal to a btu of gasoline equals a btu of ethanol.
We can also make gasoline out of unconventional oil/tar sands which use tremendous amounts of natural gas at an EROI of 2-5. Tar sands produces about 3 times as much fuel as corn-ethanol.
According to the iron law of EROI, we should therefore abandon corn ethanol in favor of Alberta tar.
Burning ethanol produces 21% less CO2 than burning gasoline and overall ethanol production produced 7.4% less emissions than gasoline production.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel
We also junk all our gasoline cars and run our cars on natural gas with an EROI of ~10. We currently don't have the infrastructure to do that.
Or we could keep bidding up the price of oil(a big chunk of our trade deficit) based on the EROI superiority of crude oil over gasoline, which is where we started from.
The fact is we need a substitute for oil, if only to reduce our total dependence on an imported commodity.
Ethanol right now makes our gasoline more compatible with the environment and replaces oil(not energy) at a rate of 1 btu of corn-ethanol for 10 btus of oil.
The US has abundant fossil energy(if any country has) which at a conversion rate of slightly less than 1 btu of coal or gas replacing 1 btu of oil could reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
The problem is in our capacity to produce enough corn ethanol, which requires we go into cellulosic ethanol which uses even less fossil fuel(higher EROI).
EROI is junk science and an urban myth.
Do not feed the troll.
Agreed (not on the troll part, I think he believes what he is saying).
Just let the comment pass.
Troll?
If you calculate the EROEI of a PV solar panel the same way (discount the solar input), the EROEI is infinite. As in, something-over-zero.
Like age determining life insurance rates, it is the best we have. Though you attach the political to this calculation, all measurements can have a political spin. There is nothing wrong with coming up with better ways to make fuel. If we could come up with a truly environmentally friendly process that uses a cistern type tank at your house that could provide enough fuel for your family, is that automatically a bad thing? To stop pumping oil from all sorts of places and driving huge tankers all over the world, have we not made progress? You are here complaining. That tells me you care and want things to get better too. What is your idea? Is the current system 'good enough'?
@majorian: and the hits just keep on coming...
a few responses:
You confuse, again, conversion efficiency with EROI.
burning ethanol produces 30ish percent less energy than gasoline as well.
EROI is one measure, not "THE" measure. I have never called it an "iron law"
ok.
maybe, the science is not clear on this. The emissions from ethanol are marginally better, yet the water consumption is FAR worse. pick your poison.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/kv23735373476t71/
EROI = Energy return on investment, synonymous with EROEI, energy return on energy investment
The statistic you reference is Energy return on fossil fuels invested, which only looks at direct fossil fuel consumption, and is hence a more restricted version of the EROI statistic. Since fewer costs are accounted for, naturally, the EROI will increase.
Is EROI not Energy Output/Energy Invested?
The way you look at EROEI is that Energy Invested is pretty much whatever you say it is, except it isn't actual energy. Usually it's money(embodied energy).
That's figured in.
1kg of ethanol produces 1.375 kg of carbon dioxide and releases 30GJ of energy.
1 kg of 'octane' produces 3.08 kg of CO2 and releases 46.4 GJ of energy; so ethanol burns at a rate of .046 kg CO2 per GJ versus octane burning at a rate of .066 kg CO2 per GJ.
30% in favor of burning ethanol on a kgCO2/GJ basis.
Gasoline is not straight octane so I used the wiki link which gave ethanol a 22% advantage to ethanol.
Trust the EPA scientists who say we need oxygenates for air quality--this isn't news(since 1990).
Some fanatical ethanauts even pretend that ethanol is more poisonous than gasoline.
http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/fuels/ostpexec.pdf
What is the point of all this 'energy accounting' anyways? If you get the energy out what you put in
isn't that enough, why does it to be 3 times or 100 times?
This is the great thing about gasohol. We can burn it
in the cars we have now and pump it in the same gas stations. All we need to invest in is some corn ethanol plants (about $23000 per daily barrel) versus
an new oil refinery (at about $20000 per daily barrel)except where's the oil for that new refinery going to come from? Overseas with cash leaving the USA.
CTL, GTL are about $70000 per daily barrel.
If you're going to reject ethanol and oil shale, then
you're basically saying 'the EROEI of oil is rising and there are no substitutes so we have to get out of our cars and walk'.
That just isn't believable(though it may poll well here at TOD).
What's more believable to me is that oil is running out and we have to develop alternative fuels to cover
at least some of our needs.
The transition from gasoline to various grades of ethanol is the easiest of the US alternatives.
because it greatly impacts reinvestment in the resource/process
if i pull a 100 barrels of oil out of the ground back in the day the energy required to convert it all into usefull stuff cost me about ten of those barrels
if I make 1 barrel of ethanol and intend on using the startling awesome 10% or so energy profit to reinvest in ethanol (or may be not) what physically is the impact on the practicality of becoming increasingly dependent on ethanol?
if your point is we will never reach that state of affairs and ethanol is some sort of stop gap "force multiplier" than really you are just agreeing with the mob anyhowwwssss ... but don't realise it?
oh come on.. demonstrate you actually know what your talking about here.. you can't have it both ways
your points about the economic need to keep farmers in the loop has some merit in so far it warrents contemplation but the the above example is right up there with Minnesota claiming petrol had a negative EROEI
No we wouldn't:
EPA officially lifts oxygenate requirement
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=2016
The Energy Policy Act required the EPA to remove the reformulated gasoline (RFG) 2 percent oxygen requirement. It took effect with its publication in the Federal Register.
“Since passage of the Clean Air Act of 1990, gasoline refiners have long sought the removal of the oxygenate requirement, claiming they could make a gasoline that would be just as clean without the added oxygen,” Renewable Fuels Association President Bob Dinneen said. “Beginning today, refiners now have that flexibility. Still, virtually all reformulated gasoline in the United States will contain ethanol because it remains a very valuable component in gasoline.”
The myth of the oxygenate requirement lives on, though. But today's engines don't actually require an oxygenate (and refineries can make high octane gasoline without one), and as far as I know the 2006 repeal of the oxygenate requirement is still in effect.
Baloney, R^2.
Who's making that oxygenate free RFG and how much more expensive is it than RFG with ethanol?
Possibly racing fuel but everyone is moving toward conventional gas with ethanol
RFG with ethanol, sole oxygenate is cheaper than industry's mythical 'clean gasoline'.
The 2005 EPACT removed the 2% oxygenate requirement and replaced it with a renewable fuels standard and a blender's credit. If the blender's credit was dropped, they'd have to go back to pre-2005 and reimpose the oxygenate standard, which means ethanol.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/aeo_2009analysispapers/cm....
http://www.epa.gov/oms/rfg/faq.htm
California, the biggest booster of RFGs, is enforcing E10.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/faq.htm
So the mandates for RFG remains in the CAA areas, either by addition oxygenate(ethanol) or by 'clean gasoline' which few are making.
The reality is ethanol in conventional gasoline is how you make RFG which is still required.
Just because you are unaware doesn't make it baloney. It is a known fact that modern engines do not require an oxygenate to meet emissions standards. In fact, California demonstrated this in 2004:
http://feinstein.senate.gov/05releases/r-epa-oxygenate030905.htm
In September 2004, CARB sponsored a study by the Coordinating Research Council (CRC). The CRC issued a report entitled Fuel Permeation From Automotive Systems. The study was designed to determine the magnitude of the permeation differences between three fuels, containing MTBE, ethanol, or no oxygenate, in the selected test fleet. The study found that emissions increased on all 10 vehicle fuel systems studied when ethanol replaced the MTBE. In fact, the ethanol blended gasoline caused emissions to increase by 65% when compared with MTBE blended gasoline, and by 45% when compared with non-oxygenated gasoline.
So in fact emissions were found to be higher with the ethanol that you insist is required. MTBE was the best at keeping emissions down, but plain gasoline was significantly better than ethanol blends.
You didn't post a link that MTBE produces fewer emissions than ethanol.
The fact is you are dredging up old articles from before EISA. Boxer was just trying to get an exemption from ethanol for California.
The fact is that conventional gasoline with ethanol
meets the RFG standard and does so cheaper than special non-oxygenate blends.
The issue was settled in 2005 EPACT.
Also,you didn't answer my question, R^2.
Link to all those oxygenate-free RFG blends.
You didn't post a link that MTBE produces fewer emissions than ethanol.
That's exactly what the link I just posted says.
Boxer was just trying to get an exemption from ethanol for California.
So she just fabricated studies then?
Also,you didn't answer my question, R^2.
Link to all those oxygenate-free RFG blends.
It is a nonsensical question. The fact is we can make regular gasoline the meets the tightest emission standards when burned in modern engines. It doesn't have to be RFG. I used to make those high-octane blends up all the time in Montana - without using MTBE or ethanol.
I don't think Boxer has the background to fabricate studies but API does. She was under pressure from
California refineries in 2005.
All this water under the bridge.
Nobody needs RFG in Montana which is for urban smog
but in 2008(were you at Exxon in 2008?) the state required that all non-premium gasoline be E10.
http://www.bakerobrien.com/documents/NPRA%20AM-06-38.pdf
The above reference shows that ethanol cost the same per gallon as gasoline in 2005 see page 5(about the same situation as today). If oil stays above $50 a barrel, adding ethanol saves money.
Since the difference between E10 and straight gasoline is 3.5%, there is no difference between the two. Proper tire inflation will raise you mileage by 3.3%. The difference is just noticable.
If we go to E20 the energy difference in energy per gallon between gasoline and E20 will be about 7%.
Still trival.
I don't think Boxer has the background to fabricate studies but API does. She was under pressure from California refineries in 2005.
So ultra-liberal Barbara Boxer was caving to the refineries? LOL! Besides, those studies weren't from the API.
Nobody needs RFG in Montana which is for urban smog
That gasoline was destined for Denver. Again, with no ethanol or MTBE we could make gasoline that met all emissions standards. So your premise is simply wrong, no matter how much you try to defend it.
What do the numbers do if,
1. I grow my own corn with hand tools and limited tractor use.
2. I distill my own ethanol.
3. I let the rain water it. I write off losses to drought.
4. I fertilize it with rich compost from the dump. $25 a ton. It is recycled from debris.
5. After the first season, I use my own seed corn.
Is there a solar distillation process for ethanol? Surely a solar furnace could distill it. Aren't little yeasts doing all the 'energy creation'? The energy 'used' to make it seems to be consumed mostly in the distillation step. So let's figure out a more efficient distillation process. How much heat do I need for say a 200 gallon mix of mash. Could I not just use some type of evaporative collector? A tent shaped plastic sheet over the vat with a drain system? Maybe it takes much longer, but I am in no hurry.
Edit: How about centrifugal separation or maybe reverse osmosis.
@ tinfoilhatguy:
i like your train of thought, but I cannot speak to alternative methods of producing ethanol.
Low EROI processes produce less net energy, and complex socieites require high net energy gains from there energy sources to pay for the higher "metabolic" cost of society. Since the EROI of corn ethanol is very low, scaling it to the national level transforms what was a marginal gain into a net loser - in my opinion.
However, using ethanol to run a farm may be a good use, i.e. it may provide a little net energy gain. Essentially - what you are doing is cutting out all of the extra costs of transportation etc.
That is where you are wrong IMHO. Society does not want high a EROI or anything like it. It is a secondary score. Society wants to live a maximum life with minimum effort. If my car runs on ten stalks of corn per year, you bet I would grow it. Sure, the city folks would string grow lights, etc to do it then, but then the smart ones would start growing it with no direct energy costs. When you were done, the energy problem would be solved for a while. EROI does not factor in the possibility of peak energy. With attainment of peak energy, then would not all expect less than optimal EROI? There is a relationship. If there is enough E, then factors other than EROI would come into play. I quit buying bicycle lights that used ever increasing AA batteries/rechargeables because the LED stuff came out and it lasts ten times longer with more candlepower. EROI trumped. The new light uses 3 AAA's that last for a month's worth of riding. Bless you.
TinFoil.
TFHG
"Want" has nothing to do with it. i am talking about the NEEDS of a complex society (higher EROI) vs a simpler society (lower EROI).
Sure, a two AAA light is better than a three AAA light if the output and battery life is the same. When I just went from 8 AA's in one night to 3 AAA's in a month EROI between the three AAA and a two AAA units becomes nearly statistically meaningless. I just needed the new LED unit and probably should look for more savings elsewhere. Is my point more clear? Bless you.
Seems to me that a 'high EROI' and 'maximum life with minimum effort' are, if not exactly the same thing, very closely related.
Not if you reduce E to Microwatt Hours. Then we should find other problems to work on.
TFHG,
What you require to distill up to almost 200 proof(close to 100 percent) is a 'constant flow,fractionating column , valved , still. Pot still is ok but tedious to reload.
A good well behaved solar dish set up will supply all the needed heat but you must have a method of controlling the heat and therefore the BP(boiling points) of the mash,etc.
All this and more is available on the web thru google with appropriate words in the search.
I own a professionally built ,commercially produced water purifier of stainless steel that could be altered slightly to do the above. I have not desire to explore this avenue as yet so it just sits in the shop, and a beautiful piece of work it is. I got it for $25 at a yard sale some time back when they hadn't a clue as to what it was.
I have distilled water in it just to test it. It has a nice recirculating function but NOT valved for feedback and recirculate.
Twere I you I would purchase some Truckers Favorite open pollen corn for feed stock . I raise this variety for my corn meal and grits which I grind myself. Very prolific and is a very good variety. White corn mind you.
I have a smallish trail bike that I think I could easily alter to run on straight ethanol. In fact I have two of them brought at a song for that very purpose.
Honda Trail 90s. Circa the 60's. Gets maybe 100 mpg or better depending on engine condition. Has a low/high gearbox for like maybe 8 gears. Will climb any hill I try to run up. Goes thru the woods with ease in low-low. 4 stroke as well.
I live in Alabama. They encourage distillation. Up to 7 gallons for personal consumption and an unlimited amount for fuel if it is denatured. What a waste of good 'shine'. Our family was famous for their brews, but the art was lost over the last 75 years. Damn feds.
There are a few old timers around here that would give me a recipe to stick it to BP and the rest. That is another factor not calculated. How mad folks are at the oil companies and how good it feels to ride on gas you grew.
TFHG -- Try to find a copy of "The Moonshiner's Manual". Came out in the late 1970s or early 1980s, IIRC. Very good handbook on how to make your own drinkable whiskey.
I decided to stick to the store-bought stuff after reading about everything that could kill you -- lead (DO NOT USE A CAR RADIATOR FOR A CONDENSER), copper sulfate, various fusel oils and other stuff. Moonshining is like brewing beer on steroids.
You think the store stuff has never killed? Especially when mixed with stupidity or machinery? As for distillation protocol, my experience is in the lab with glass. I am also good with copper. I always buy fresh silver solder because of cost and risk. I prefer brass screw type compression fittings anyhow. Is there another product that is better out there? Stainless steel maybe?
Well, this is a most fascinating post, and I must admit I haven't read it all yet.
but I will.
I don't know if it has been touched on yet, but if I recall, the value of the left-over distilled grains, has been shown to be in fact, of greater nutrtitional benefit than just the corn itself.
To me it seems important to factor this into the EROEI question, since, much of that grain would be mostly fed to animals in the first place.
We are not grain eaters (tho' we should be), we are second-hand grain eaters because we feed it to animals first.
Since the grain would/could have been fed to them, then IMVHO, the return on ethanol is very positive. We add a little yeast and energy to existing corn and pull some quality liquid fuels out of it on the way to the feedlot.
I hope this is all being factored in.
To the person who uses ethanol for their motorcycle, if you use the simple solar still (campfire series, Dry Food Cooking part 2), you can probably distill your alcoholic beverage to about 2-4 ounces of 'everclear' a day.
Also, I calculate by distilling homemade wine, etc., the costs would be between 7 and 14 dollars a gallon. Way too high for practicality, but perhaps not in the unknown future...especially if you can do it solar to further improve ROI.
Solar stills should greatly reduce the costs of making ethanol.
For more on the boon of alcohol, please read "Alcohol can be a gas", by David Blume. ISBN 9780979043789
This excellent book may give some pause to rethink their postions on ethanol.
AND, don't forget, hemp also is a waiting resource, which purportedly will outproduce most anything for cellulosic and will simultaneously produce good grade biodeisel that is even edible.
Go Hemp!
Sorry if this has already been addressed, I wanted to get a post up before the topic is closed.
Looking forward to part 2!
double post deleted.....wern't my fault..twas TOD's fault
You are thinking along the right lines if it's for personal use. But to get the amount of corn you need on the small amount of land you can work by hand and limited tractor use will require a high yielding corn variety. These varieties are the result of genetic engineering by the seed companies. Saving you own seed is a violation of Federal Law as you are now infringing on the seed company patent. :( The cost of the seed will need to be factored in to your costs.
Rainwater collection works but you'll need storage tanks and gutters to collect the water. That'll set you back a couple thousand (last time I priced large tanks a 500 gal plastic tank was like $800.
For heat why not cut and use your own wood? Or get wood scraps / chips from someone. It wouldn't take that much, a few 100 lbs.
I wonder how the EROI changes if instead of corn you use Sugar Cane?
It improves, but sugarcane doesn't grow too well in North Dakota.
Really, as bad as the EROEI numbers look, the deeper problem is the water issue, which doesn't really fit into energy calculations very well.
For most of our existence, humans have lived without non-photosynthetic-based energy. But we have never been able to live very long anywhere without water.
From a resource perspective, the drawdown of fossil water is a greater crime than the drawdown of fossil fuel.
But then only by burning mass quantities of ff could we have thrown the entire planet into a death spiral of climate chaos.
I read 86% of all corn grown in the US is now gen modified anyways. How can I be busted for infringement if the companies cannot control their genes? I should sue them for denying me true access to unmodified DNA. I actually do not mind well thought out and tested gen mod products. The thing I wonder is how the original 'Americans' did it? Have you ever seen how corn started?
"Saving you own seed is a violation of Federal Law as you are now infringing on the seed company patent. :( The cost of the seed will need to be factored in to your costs."
One can do with open pollen varieties as one wants to and the gobermint can do zip about it. Or has even this freedom to plant a seed been forfeited? I think not.
Hybrid and GMO is trash and IMO worthless to boot. My Truckers Favorite makes it look sickly. The stalks rise up about 14 feet. The ears are huge and far more productive than GMO and hybrid. The kernels are full and I don't have to drown it in N,P,K since I plant it at correct spacings(not the pop of big ag farmers). Thus I can use the cobs to start my wood fire or for substitute toilet paper and other uses, such as bottle stoppers, etc.
I also save the shucks for fire starting. They also make worthy toilet paper if need be.
BTW a 150 gal Rubbermaid stock tank will cost $129...for I just brought one for a hot tub. I also collect water from the roof in it. Most all sheds and houses have gutters already.
Where do you LIVE? I have all metal roofs. I have gutters even on my barn to catch water. Thousands of dollars? Think a hundred buck for a 45x60 pole barn. Whiskey barrels make nice catch containers and rather cheap at that.
Depends. I have actually always believed local seed stocks give a greater chance of success. Maybe I am wrong. Thanks.
I live in TX, we have years with plenty of rain and years with darn near none. If you live anywhere west of the 100the meridian rainfall drops to less than 30" rain per year so you need lots of storage. If all you want is enough to cook up some ethanol you don't need 1000's of gallons of storage but if you want to irrigate to GROW that corn with enough yield then you'll need it. Back East, you are good on normal rainfall. Metal roofs are getting more common but stlll the vast majority are composite asphalt shingles. Roof type doesn't limit your collection anyhow. A 1000 gal water tank can run you $500 to $1000 depending on where you buy it and if it's already plumbed. Throw in some delivery charges too unless you have a sizable trailer and tow vehicle. Genetic engineered varieties have many characteristics that your Truckers Favorite doesn't. TF is eating corn and thus has high sugar content and moderate yield and some disease resistance. GM corn has been developed with high starch content, very high corn to stalk ratios, super high yield and high disease resistance. But it does take lots of inputs partially due to the type but more due to the density it is planted. In fact I was in a GOM corn field over the weekend just North of Amarillo, TX and the density is corn about every 8-12" apart, almost so dense you could walk in without breaking down stalks. You can eat that corn when it is very young (and we did) but it's not really that good.
Here in TX you don't have to use corn as your feedstock. East of that 100th meridian, sorghum is a good choice. And of course, they've been making hooch from the juice of the agave for centuries -- it's called tequila.
Has there been a recent survey of what fuels are used to "power" the Biorefinery? I was driving through Iowa a couple of years ago and noticed a large plume of black-gray smoke in the distance. (reminded me of China)...The source was a biorefinery, burning coal, with a crude metal smoke stack. IIRC, one of the early rationals for the improved "greeness" of ethanol was the use of "clean" natural gas for the biorefineries.
Hush now, you're not supposed to look at that. It's all green, and actually takes CO2 out of the atmosphere, so all that smoke must be the anti-CO2 components escaping from the biorefinery.
I don't think we have to worry about corn, Obama and Chu have other plans for us that have been in the making. See: knol.google.com/k/sam-carana/funding-of-carbon-air-capture/7y50rvz9924j/9#
Algae fuel is Obama and Chu's pet project, it is in an advanced stage of development and the article above shows how they have lied about how large our dead zones are and how our shrimping industry is declining.OF course since the oil spill we might have the dead zone they so desire for algae production.And of course the new Ocean Zoning laws will help to dictate what goes on in the gulf.I could go on as it is well recorded the path that they are leading us down.
As if there aren't enough plastic bags floating around in the ocean already.
Soon we'll see discussion of whether the algae project is net-plastic-positive or negative. And reading of the wonderful beneficial effects of floating plastic...
EROI is an inferior measure compared to good old cost.
Except price signals are hidden by subsidies, so who knows?
We've never run out of anything before when price signals were in place, why would we now?
Let ethanol compete on price- perhaps using the excess energy the windmills will be unable to force on utilities when those subsidies are eliminated- because at some point it will be cheaper than oil.
If not, or if that point isn't soon enough for investors, let the technology continue to improve before scaling up.
Some merit, but price is IMHO a worse "measure of merit" since so many things used in typical production processes are priced without consideration of use of commons resources (runnoff streams and atmospheric capacity to handle exhaust waste streams), or inputs of resources which are only priced at "cost of extraction" ignoring long-term future shortages (mineral fertilizers, agricultural soils, natural gas fuel etc.)
But to do EROI correctly, it seems that one would have to convert all the factors of production to BTUs or Joules, etc., which is just about as fuzzy as converting them all to dollars or Troy oz of gold.
You need to add up all the energy used to produce all the capital investments in farm equipment, farm buildings, land, etc, as well as the capital investments in trucks, biorefineries, storage bins, rail sidings, rail cars, land, buildings, etc., and then distribute that energy input over the time those assets are in use.
Is there a "time value of energy" similar to "time value of money", so that a proper engineering economic analysis can be done? There must be a future stream of energy outputs from the energy capital to accommodate depreciation and return on investment?
How is the energy input of labor handled? If a worker comes to the plant and monitors systems from a control room for 8 hours, what do you measure? His lunch and the gas he used to get to work?
How do you do property and income tax effects in EROI?
Some very rigorous analysis uses "statistical per-work-hour" national or state-wide averages, others ignore it and let the ethanol have the VERY TINY extra credits.
Please detail why you think a calculated ratio of Energy Return on Energy Invested should have property tax or income tax as an input?
Property tax accounts for the expense of, for example, maintaining the county and township roads that are used to haul supplies to the farms and the corn to the biorefinery. Other examples are law enforcement protection, education of the workers' and farmers' children, school busses (which really do burn FF), etc.
State and federal income taxes account for energy used by those governments to fulfill their functions.
@ merrill
yep. that is why it is tedious and time consuming to perform EROI analyses.
There is, and there is a paper in the works (not by me) on this exact topic. stay tuned.
Allow me to debate this issue of EROEI for a bit.
Firstly I think it has a metaphysical ring to it. Very very hard to exactly quantify it. This assumes one must add ALL the various and sundry 'inputs' , whatever they may be and this is rather difficult to do.
Say way back the land where I live was full of immense gullies. One could bury a house and two mules in some of them and not even realize they were in there. This was due to the usage of very ugly and harmful plowing and cultivation methods by quick buck farmers. Those with total disregard for the land usage in the future.
So how does one quantify gullies that result from stupid farming practices? Or the loss of wildlife due to destruction of woodlands and fence rows? You really can't do that easily.
So it becomes a metaphysical entity. You think of all the various and sundry negatives and try to add them up with a monetary value and it just will not compute.
Therefore what EROEI is saying is this:
We are using a lot of stuff up that we are not sure of to do this enterprise and produce this specific product. YET those who do the startup and bring it all into production are in effect NOT counting all the inputs. What about the smoke from the stacks causing cancer to some nearby inhabitants who breathe it? No Answer.
What about the lack of sunshine due to massive smoke? No answer.
And the list could go on and on but WHAT the execs and startup folks are using for their profit picture is just the very very simple INPUTs such as fuel and electricity and building costs and hourly wages.
They NEVER calculate the real costs. And therein lies the results we now face in this day and age as all those uncounted INPUTS are now flocking home to roost and we never gave them the slightliest thought UNTIL now. Now when its tooooo late.
So EROEI will continue to be not more than a debating point and issue. While nature pays the real cost. And then we suffer the results of what nature does about it. Like all the melting ice caps. All the extreme weather events. Like the absolute roasting heat wave weather being experienced all over the USA in many areas. Floods.Chaotic events.
Mother nature all along has been counting these felonious lack of counting of inputs and now the equations are being solved finally and we are now observing the REAL ACUTAL EI...the inputs we squandered...they are not being counted as we are sadly lacking and not really happy about paying those costs, costs that NOW must be paid.
A philosophical formula. One we never ever wanted to think about. We are now living.
Good luck with the mathematics. I don't think Mother Nature does math. She just gets even and both sides of the equation are now being solved. You get some goodies out of the goodie lockers but you WILL pay them back!!! And the math does not really matter and no one except Mother Nature can compute it anyway.
My ideas on EROEI. A waste of time since deep down we recognize stupid waste of our resouces but really really don't give a rat's ass. Long as 'I got mine and you can get yours'.
The Merkin way? Obama will learn this lesson the hard way.Very very hard peas, to use an old saying. Or the cheese is binding.
As it was put way back in the 60's.." There is NO free lunch." It is simple as that. And that is simple and yet we have let the charlatans and scam artists rip us off and applauded them as they did so.
We will now pay the bill/s as it comes due. Will not be pretty.
Best advice. Get your lifeboat in the water ASAP.Start paddling and don't ever ever look back. And never fail to understand that nature keeps score very well. Your outputs better exceed the input costs. Sunlight is all you have to work with, in all its forms. The rest has all been used up by the corpos and politicos. Whats left is dog squeeze. Yet even that makes fair fertilizer. I like red wigglers myself. Figure that out and you might catch a clue. I could be wrong but if so it will be my failings. I can live with that. Can you? Wigglers make compost. The best IMO.
I keep a bucket full working in the barn. Their EROEI is hard to compute also. All my garbage is food for the wigglers. I do my part and sleep well knowing they are on the plus side of the EROEI equation. No input costs to dig worms or very little and the payback is very large.
You folks can take it from there. I never was good in high school algebra anyway.
Best to all and excuse the ramblings. My beer keg bears the blame.
PS. Yet this constant renewing of the EROEI debate without it ever being resolved does grow tedious and so my commment.
deleted double post
How does EROI account for the use of commons resources? Or depletion of resources, such as minerals from the soil?
Prices/costs can be calculated for each and every input. The decentralization of this calculation, coupled with private property rights (and responsibilities) makes these calculations- including risk which will be reflected in the profit margin- much more reliable than some bureaucrat scientist's computer strokes. Future shortages are adequately time-weighted in current prices as alternatives (or lack of them) affects prices- for example, as the price of gasoline goes up, people drive less. Ultimately, no gasoline will mean no driving- using gasoline, anyway.
And commons resources are accounted for in prices as well, as our judicial system allows for lawsuits over just this thing.
EROI is a decent back of the napkin filter and though-provoker, but serious policy should be developed around prices- real ones, not the subsidized (and therefore, unsustainable) ones.
What I didn't see discussed is the energy content of the oil that can be extracted from corn and used directly or converted to biodiesel. I've seen claims that the EROI of biodiesel is over 3:1 at the refinery gate. Since ethanol is made only from the starch there is still considerable energy in the other parts of the grain delivered to the distiller of which a portion is DDGS.
With 65% of the energy inputs are at the refinery there appears to be great potential for efficiency improvements which were likely not considered cost effective when the plant was built. For instance the use of heat pumps to return the heat of fusion back to the boiler thereby cutting energy use considerably. Locating the distiller near a CHP electrical generator would make use of heat that now goes to the cooling tower. All these calculations are based on existing distilleries and not on what is possible if the proper engineering with the goal of energy efficiency in mind was followed.
1) Above calculations include "credits" for byproducts extracted from the corn at the same time as ethanol, though I've never heard that bio-diesel might be among them.
2) Location of the refinery is very strictly controlled to minimize transport distance of the bio-material inputs, since transporting of it is a large part of the total energy inputs. Moving to a large generating plant to gain a few percent improvement in fuel inputs to the evaporation process would likely be counter-productive in most cases.
3) It is highly likely that fuel input efficiency / economics to the plant operation process was among the highest design criteria for the engineers of existing facilities. If a regenerative heat-pump circuit could be cost-effecitive it would probably already be installed.
Is this correct: EROI is the energy (in the form of economic goods) produced divided by the amount of energy (in the form of economic goods) consumed during production? i.e. the sunlight used to grow corn is not part of the calculation, since sunlight is not scarce and is not an economic good.
But why is EROI even relevant? For an entrepeneur, it is only the market signals of profit and loss that matter.
As an analogy, a winery can turn sweet grapes into rotgut wine, resulting in a very low TROI (taste return on investment). Yet, many consumers hold the wine outputs much more dear than the grape inputs, resulting in profit for the the winery owner.
Likewise, if my car runs on corn ethanol then I may not care one whit about how much energy is contained in a liter of ethanol vs. a liter of gasoline. I do not care that I am only getting a miniscule fraction of the energy that could be obtained by fusing ethanol molecules into iron atoms. I do what is economically efficient for my given situation. If the market, including the action of speculators, sets the prices of different kinds of fuel at different values, then I may be motivated to junk my car and get one that runs on a cheaper fuel. If it takes 10 years to pay off the investment, then I may choose not to upgrade.
So, basically, I'm saying that the EROI is not necessarily relevant to the entrepeneur nor to the consumer. If it is relevant at all, it is only indirectly through the price signals of the market.
But I guess EROI may be important to the bureaucrat who is busy spending other people's money on making imagined social improvements that other people don't seem to want or need.
You're either buying into corporatist propaganda or developing it yourself.
>You're either buying into corporatist propaganda or developing it yourself.
No, I'm a fan of economic science.
And I fail to see how wanting to protect the taxpayer from his wealth being seized and squandered on government corn experiments is corporatist propaganda. If corn ethanol were indeed a worthwhile investment, then there are plenty of rich entrepeneurs who can gamble their own money on it; the taxpayer and consumer shouldn't be ripped off.
If anything, it is the corn grower who I would expect to engage in corporatist propganda and lobbying for special subsidies and privileges at the expense of the hapless taxpayer. I think it's because of the corn industry's lobbying that I'm drinking soda with corn syrup instead of the soda with sugar that's available in other countries. See here for some of the harmful interventions (like the sugar tariff) instigated by the corn industry:
http://mises.org/daily/3934 (corn ethanol)
http://mises.org/daily/2678 (corn syrup in sodas)
If you have something intelligent to add, then please post it. Otherwise, let's just hear more of your glib and incorrect ad hominem remarks.
@Dr. Acula (is your name a reference to Mitch Hedberg?)
EROI is not that useful, at least for now, for most corporations and business people because the links between high EROI and profitability have not been quantified. For them, cost-benefit analysis is the holy grail. There is strong evidence, however, that higher EROI projects are more profitable. This is an area of my current research and hope to expound on that in the future.
Never heard of the guy.
>EROI is not that useful... because the links between high EROI and profitability have not been quantified.
That's because they aren't linked. There is no reason to expect ratios of energy input and output to determine profit any more than a winery can calculate profit by computing a ratio of input grape flavor and output wine flavor (FROI - flavor return on investment).
>There is strong evidence, however, that higher EROI projects are more profitable.
EROI is not even a scientifically well-defined concept, because there may be multiples ways of extracting energy from a given economic good - there is no unique measurement of the economically usuable energy in a given good. Both the numerator and denominator in the EROI calculation are ill-defined.
EROI is especially silly, considering that it totally negelects the non-energy uses of the economic goods involved - for example, the ability to make popcorn instead of ethanol.
I suppose when you define a non-scientific, ill-defined measure like EROI, then you might be able to find some kind of tenuous correlation with economic reality and profitability. It may also really be true that higher FROI wines are more profitable for the winery. This does not mean the winery operator should focus on finding foul-tasting grapes to improve his business.
Ok I think I see where you are confused
the economy in general is a EROEI failure because the end use of energy commodities such as liquid fuels produces the stuff we consume... like food
food=negative EROEI but we need it.. your conflating two sides of the economy
1:the bit fueling production of fuels to produce stuff we consume/end user consumption
2:the end user consumption
part 1 has to have a positive EROEI or you ain't getting any part 2
Dr,
You are coming to the party very very late.
EROEI and EROI have been discussed in huge and great detail in the past on TOD.
You might expect to raise a new argument but that has been raised so in the past many times.
The debate still goes on but at not such a simple level as you state. As a tool I believe TOD debate has indicated that it is a very valuable but very misused tool.
Corporate entities do NOT consider many of the input values that should be considered hence we are in the straits we now are sailing into.
It all started IIRC with the ethanol issue. You might wish to search and read some of the vast amounts of previous discussion instead of rehashing it all over again and again as though it was all new provocative thoughts when it is not.
Is the lost of trees considered a energy input when the farmer clears them from the fence row? The trees removed moisture from the nearby soil and the shade reduces growth of the corn BUT the trees also sheltered the soil in the field from wind erosion. So what is the inputs and outputs.
You can be sure that it is only the astute farmer who is likely able to take the correct route as to the fence line trees or learns the hard way when his fine topsoil has migrated away and he now has a very harsh attmept to improve his EROEI and make a profit.
Most farmers I know want to and do have a track hoe push them into a pile and burn them, thereby creating large amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere and one asks whose EROEI gets gored by that burning? Yet it does occurs and the costs must mean that pigeon has to go roost somewhere. It roosts on the backs of all of us since it affects global warming and thereby adds to the EI of all farmers.
Yet this is the selfish way many farm. No heed for others , no heed for nature and wildlife, and no heed but that of immediate return and the devil take the hindmost.
We are living this now because of paying zero attention to the EROEI formula and its implications. I submit that overall we have been engaged in a viciously low , very low ER for our EIs. The earth has given up about all it can and now comes the payback. The very dear payback.
So is EROEI valuable or correct? Yes I would say it is and those who would be bound by it have ,of course , NO desire to be bound by it BUT they are eventually whether they like it or not.
Most do NOT see the reality of modern farming/ag methods. They drive by a field of corn or wheat or soybeans and rummer to themselves yet never ever see what is happening underneath.
They do not see that aircraft spraying vast areas and the winds blowing it here and there. They do not notice the total absence of insect life afterwards. Or the run offs into the watersheds. Its not just one spraying, its many over the life of just one crop. Corn being the worst offended.
If you asked them to stand beside the field as the chemicals were all about them as the breathed they would be angry and refuse to do so. Yet many live chockablock right next to those fields and the water run off can affect many.
What about the confinement feeding which produces a poor product? The consumer's health suffers? EROEI? Not mine the grower says. Industrial grade food products that are not real food but just a mix of chemicals and possibly a tad of real white refined flour for labeling purposes? The Twinkie that Michael Pollan placed over his workstation and never perished but remained soft and chewy for over two years? Is this food? No, its junk and your health takes the hit.
So who uses EROEI? Not any IMO. The earth does I think.
Maybe lengould thought it was corporatist because it sounded like you were making a non-sequitur dig at government bureaucrats. It was a confusing statement: I don't understand why you think it is bureaucrats who support government corn experiments. If anything, it is the corn lobby that keeps the subsidies going, or congresspeople who live by delivering pork to their districts, all despite whatever the bureaucrats say. My guess is that the bureaucrats don't actually look much at EROI studies anyway.
"Is this correct: EROI is the energy (in the form of economic goods) produced divided by the amount of energy (in the form of economic goods) consumed during production? i.e. the sunlight used to grow corn is not part of the calculation, since sunlight is not scarce and is not an economic good."
No it is not correct.
You really are missing a lot of important technical points. Did you read the article or did you just jump into the discussion?
You should care about the difference in the amount of energy in alcohol vs gasoline. It determines a lot of important factors about the car you drive; the range, the environmenal effect, balance of trade, lots more.
Ethanol to iron atoms? You need to study some basic science before you argue with the engineers and scientists on this site about scientific concepts!
EROI is relevant for all of the reasons discussed above but it seems you are too scientifically illiterate to understand.
>No it is not correct.
Really? Then try to show off your knowledge by helping others, not by insulting them calling them "illiterate". I suspect it is you who is in fact wrong, and that's why you utterly failed to provide a better definition.
Wikipedia describes EROI thusly "the ratio of the amount of usable energy acquired from a particular energy resource to the amount of energy expended to obtain that energy resource". This is basically equivalent to the definiton I gave. Any unusable energy produced (like the latent energy in fusing atoms in the ethanol to form heavier atoms) is not an economic good. Any non-expended energy introduced, like freely received sunlight used to grow corn, is not an economic good. EROI is a dimensionless ratio of output energy and input energy, where economically irrelevant elements are excluded.
>You should care about the difference in the amount of energy in alcohol vs gasoline.
Why? As a consumer, I care only about my cash holdings, not about how many joules and ergs my gas tank holds. If two gallons of ethanol has as much energy as one gallon of gasoline, but it is the same price in both cases, why should I as a consumer care? If energy density were so important, then I would invest right away in technology that uses plutonium as a fuel and not worry about ethanol or gasoline.
>Ethanol to iron atoms? You need to study some basic science
It's called nuclear fusion. Performing chemical transformations on hydrocarbons yields an unbelievably miniscule amount of energy compared to nuclear fusion. But of course, the latter is economically unfeasible. Which just shows that it is economic concerns that matter to most people, not joules/liter or other physics quantities. The latter is of concern to engineers chiefly working for industry in the service of consumer demand.
your getting yourself in a tangled mess. don't we all...
you should perhaps think in terms of primary energy.
IE what is the start point or boundary of the EROI calculation.. ie liquid fuel inputs vs liquid fuel outputs
fusion is not taking place in the process so can be ignored... sunlight or 2nd hand fusion is being used but the calculations do not bother factoring it in because it is innate on all sides of the equation/calculation in that the energy stored be it fossil fuels or bio fuels all originated there.
it gets more complex if part of the bio fuel production normally fueled by liquid fossil fuels, eg tractors, was fueled by non liquid fuels...say solar PV electric tractor, then the balance swings more in favour of bio fuels (perhaps not, I dunno? but you get the point)
for processes to be self contained or self fueling EROIs of less than 2-3 become very problematic as the majority of the product is recycled into production rather than end use.
>your getting yourself in a tangled mess. don't we all...
I'm sorry, but it's a fact that a knowledge of physics does not qualify one to be an expert on questions in the field of economics. To deal with EROI, a hybrid physics/economics quantity, without knowledge of both physics and economics is to be negligent.
Entrepeneurial action is aimed at minimizing input costs (expenditures) and maximizing output costs (revenues). Entrepeneurial calculations involve economic gains and losses measured in dollars, not energy gains and losses measured in joules. Energy possesses no intrinsic value; it only has the value assigned to it through the subjective preferences of individual consumers or imputed to it indirectly through its derived products.
To perform economic calculations on the basis of joules is foolhardy. EROI may be a guide to entrepeneurial action, but it cannot be the primary driver or market losses will likely ensue.
As an example, it may be possible to cheaply refine one liquid fuel into another with a higher energy density. However, if the resulting fuel has hazardous properties - such as being too explosive - rendering it not commercially viable, then economic losses will result regardless of EROI. The consumer cares not one whit whether there is some numerical improvement in a physics quantity involved in the production of an economic good.
I'm a consumer and I care. E10 screws up my lawnmower, weedeater and generator (for those pesky hurricanes) unless I take on a greater preventative maintenance regime, and has 85.1% to 96.6% of the energy per gallon yet it seems that I am charged the normal rate of pure gasoline. (For a time we had a station that sold non-ethanol gasoline and the prices were withing a couple of cents of the other E10 based stations).
Now they are making noise about going to E15. That means that I will be getting even less energy per gallon... how much you want to bet that the prices stay the same?
It's all academic until it starts taking more fill-ups to go the same distance.
I think you have stumbled on a well discussed observation in how things are organised..
the EROEI of an end user product/service/commodity etc is largely irrelevant in economic terms and its value in dollar terms is a subjective calculation
this we can concede
however let us review the post I made earlier that you may have missed.
the notion of primary fuel as opposed to end use is a real distinction and is a relativily simple concept
if the input energy for bio fuels came from a hypothetical abundant source such as fusion the product, bio fuel would not be tainted so much by EROEI analysis as the bio fuels themselves would not be recycled as as a trigger for more primary fuel production.. they would just be an end use. you would not need to pour the liquid fuels you have created back into bio fuel production where an EROEI of 1 or just over (perhaps less!) leaves you running in air
replacing crude oil products with bio fuels without a new external primary fuel other than the bio fuel itself is a different kettle of fish...there is an unstated assumption that the replacement applies for all parts of the production cycle
which clearly it doesn't
in a way its a bit of information that allows you to make a subjective judgment on its value.. if that helps you out
Let me repeat. The EROEI argument and debate has been discussed ad infinitum in the past. Why do you not go a read the past discussions instead of acting the fool as you state.
Many new members may not recall those debates but they did occur. Its simple to find them , though I must admit I do not try to since I recall the essence of them already.
You ask for some to help you understand then? Do your homework by reading what already transpired in this area.
No, it's not "basically equivalent" to your definition, because you threw economic goods in there. For them to be "basically equivalent" one would have to subscribe to an energy theory of monetary value. There are lots of competing theories of monetary value, to say the least. I don't find the energy theory plausible on its own.
Perhaps I should add that I share your frustration with definitions. The acronym 'EROI' is used variously by different authors to mean both the Wikipedia definition and yours. Which, again, is why I prefer to talk about 'EROEI.' Perhaps I'll even start advocating ER/EI.
I disagree with you that EROI is irrelevant to entrepreneurs. If I come up with an energy product that has negative EROI, that does not bode well for the viability of a business based on that product. If I were a venture capitalist I certainly wouldn't invest in an energy product where I hadn't seen an LCA (unless my investment were to fund an LCA). After all, that's what's going to tell me the most about what mass production costs will be.
ROI of anything even if it is bogus is of interest to investors, no? Investors are all about what folks think as much as what things really are like, no? Yes jaggedben, investors should know what goes on here, but then they should probably ignore most of it.
I am not an entrepreneur, but I do know the following: the alternative technology that has had (arguably) the most global success is wind power, which also happens to have the highest EROI when compared to PV, biofuels, algae, etc. The alternative energy resources that have not had as much success have had much lower EROIs. Ethanol has a very low EROI, and some would say it is successful, but it has required massive government intervention, so it is not exactly an even playing field. In short, if I were an entrepreneur and saw that high EROI alternatives were more successful than low EROI alternatives, it would certainly spark my attention...
In Murphy's definition, that's correct, because David uses costs as a proxy for energy. However, relying on the value of economic goods to calculate energy values is suspect in my opinion. This is why I prefer to talk about EROEI, which stands for "energy returned over energy invested", and is strictly physics and not a physical/economic hybrid. In my opinion it's a more useful concept.
I use dollars as a proxy for energy cost when necessary, but it is a last resort. Nonetheless, I would not say that EROI is the energy of economic goods...
Sorry if I misrepresented your work, and thanks for the clarification. I do think that using dollars as proxy for energy cost can only end up decreasing EROEI values, although by how much is hard to say.
The bottom line on ANY bio-fuels project including ethanol, is how well does it compare for net energy output to a solar thermal generating station installed on the same land area as the crop fields? Solar insolation to dry biomass conversion efficiency of photosynthesis is typically < 1%. Solar insolation to electricity conversion efficiency of a trough type solar thermal plant is typically 15%, while present stirling engine systems can be up to 28%.
Bottom line is, to get as much potential energy out of a cornfield (in the form of dry burnable bio-mass) as from 1 square kilometer of solar thermal plant (as electricity), you need approximately 300 sq kilometers of cornfield. THEN begin converting the corn into ethanol, which will waste most of the harvested crop.
Its a ridiculous proposition. The cornfields need to be planted, fertilized and perhaps watered constantly, whereas the solar plant only needs minor inputs of washing water and perhaps condenser water. The cornfield needs your best food-growing cropland, while the solar plant is happy to install on un-farmeable wastelands etc.
Ridiculous. When electric energy today is much more useful (based on market prices, at LEAST twice as useful per unit energy on the market as liquid fuels). Electric trains, battery-operated city vehicles, electric streetcars and busses eg. Toronto. Ridiculous SUV-feeding sink-hole.
Corn-Based Ethanol Flunks Key Test
Science 1 May 2009:
Vol. 324. no. 5927, p. 587
DOI: 10.1126/science.324_587
Dan Charles
Last week, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted a low-carbon fuel standard that requires greater use of fuels that cause lower greenhouse gas emissions, compared with gasoline. Corn-based ethanol doesn't meet that test and won't benefit from the new standard, CARB says, because diverting corn into ethanol production increases deforestation and the clearing of grasslands. The biofuels industry has attacked the board's methodology, as well as similar conclusions in a regulation drafted last year by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that is under review by the Obama Administration.
"The bottom line on ANY bio-fuels project including ethanol, is how well does it compare for net energy output to a solar thermal generating station installed on the same land area as the crop fields?"
This may be the bottom line for a government-run project.
But for an entrepeneur, the bottom-line is the net profit generated for a particular area of land, not energy. If solar panels are too expensive because they are made from scarce materials, then it may not matter if they have greater EROI. The scarce materials may have more socially useful functions than as solar panels and may be bid up in price accordingly. The entrepeneur must consider the costs of depreciation and replacement of the panels as well as interest rates. If the land cannot generate enough revenue, then the entrepeneur may be forced through market losses to sell the land. It may then need to be sold for a more socially useful purpose, such as the construction of a strip joint.
I'm not arguing whether solar is better or worse than corn, but only that the bottom line is money. And I fail to see why entrepeneurs are entrusted with growing tomatoes and carrots, but somehow corn is different and requires special government intervention for the right amounts or kinds to be grown.
Sounds like you're trying to make an argument against the capitalist / market economy, since by your example you've proven that it gains the wrong conclusion from it's incentives.
Science 22 May 2009:
Vol. 324. no. 5930, pp. 1055 - 1057
DOI: 10.1126/science.1168885
Greater Transportation Energy and GHG Offsets from Bioelectricity Than Ethanol
J. E. Campbell, D. B. Lobell, C. B. Field
The quantity of land available to grow biofuel crops without affecting food prices or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from land conversion is limited. Therefore, bioenergy should maximize land-use efficiency when addressing transportation and climate change goals. Biomass could power either internal combustion or electric vehicles, but the relative land-use efficiency of these two energy pathways is not well quantified. Here, we show that bioelectricity outperforms ethanol across a range of feedstocks, conversion technologies, and vehicle classes. Bioelectricity produces an average of 81% more transportation kilometers and 108% more emissions offsets per unit area of cropland than does cellulosic ethanol. These results suggest that alternative bioenergy pathways have large differences in how efficiently they use the available land to achieve transportation and climate goals.
Perhaps, but I have 13 fallow acres of prime farmland in Alabama that I could not get farmed for free to reduce the taxes on it. America is not short of farmland. Period.
Here's a really interesting article on why corn ethanol is such a disaster:
http://mises.org/daily/3934
Apparently, Brazil is much more successful than US because Brazil
"makes its ethanol from sugar, which yields over eight units of energy for each unit invested, whereas corn-based ethanol yields a paltry one and a half units of energy"
And the US uses corn because it hates the sugar industry:
"ADM backed its competition's political agenda and, when Ronald Reagan took office, the sugar tariff was swiftly ushered into place... Perhaps this is why a statue of Ronald Reagan stands at ADM headquarters. It is a token of appreciation from one free marketeer to another for promoting what is, essentially, a socialist policy."
I do not know about sugar beets, but sugar cane can only be grown in limited paces and it is hard on the land. Didn't Florida kick sugar out of the Everglades? Something about water needs and the annual burn?
"sugar cane can only be grown in limited paces and it is hard on the land"
Nevertheless, some farmers seem to have figured it out. Corn fertilizer runs off into and kills a lot of wildlife in the gulf of mexico, so it isn't exactly environmentally friendly either: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22301669/ ("Corn boom could expand ‘dead zone’ in Gulf").
Corn ethanol is clearly an insane solution. The free market will quickly eliminate that wasteful industry, if it is ever allowed to do so - i.e. when the government lifts the subsidies and tariffs propping it up at taxpayer and consumer expense.
Note that I'm not a big fan of either corn or sugar. I just want the government out of the way so these industries are allowed to fight it out. I, as a consumer, want access to the best and cheapest products (ethanol, soda pop, candy, whatever) derived from either crop.
What about sugar beets?
Sugar cane?
What you want is sorghum. Then you can press it and cook down the juice for some really great sorghum. This to me beats sugar beets and all that mess.
In my area there are several that press sorghum and make quite good molasses. We call it sorghum molasses. I got a few quart jars in the pantry right now.
A small patch will do easily and you need a pan to cook it down with. While on a trip to Charlotte , NC some time back I saw some guys off the highway cooking down some molasses.
I stopped a got a jar while it was still hot. I drank it right outa the jar while driving. Then washed it down later with some high quality bourbon.
Molasses and cows butter on hot Martha White biscuits is hard to beat.
Surely beets make molasses too. The sugar is the same, no? We were talking about widespread cultivation and I was thinking beets gave us a better chance. I prefer honey on my biscuits anyhow.
TinFoil.
Edit: Isn't the leftovers from beets more useful as feed for animals?
Rather like beating a dead horse. Not much new here except that perhaps a few politicos may eventually take notice. I am not holding my breath on that. A complete waste of taxpayer money.
Do you have a link to the Cleveland paper?
Beans are clearly a better investment than corn.
I can eat beans, and the chewing takes no economically relevant energy.
I can then produce human dung, which can be burned for energy.
The EROI must be astronomical.
food production is largely negative
Not if you are hungry.
"food production is largely negative"
And yet people continue to grow food. Why is that?
And is it really negative EROI to produce food? When one eats food, one releases thermal and often kinetic energy (e.g. walking) in the human body. Plus it produces potential energy of which a bunch is hanging at my waist right now. Why isn't that incorporated in EROI calculations?
Food also helps one produce brain activity, but that is a low energy process and negligible from the EROI point of view. Essentially, EROI considerations show that a human being sitting in an unthinking, catatonic state is indistinguishable from a human being performing EROI calculations.
Not to mention all the methane I am capable of producing. Unfortunately, there are noxious gases that are included too.
The brain, which is about 2% of body weight, consumes about 20% of energy. But you are right that its energy consumption does not depend much on what it is thinking.
well it is'??? or is contained with in such calculations???
I think your confusing yourself here?
just about every process in the universe is negative... ?
one distinction you(others) are failing to notice is the start point for EROEI to be calculated from.
for instance if we calculate the EROEI of crude oil stating at the sun 200 million yrs ago the EROEI of crude is rubbish
less than 0.000000 (lots of zeros later, guessing here) 1 to 1
one trick is deciding where that relevant start point is from a practical and planning perspective.
"And yet people continue to grow food. Why is that?"
Overall very very few people actually grow food.
Farmers grow corn, wheat and soybeans basically and transport it to ADM and other large corporations. Those corporations produce much of what comes to be what we call FOOD but has very little real food value.
Nina Planck -- Real Food
Michael Pollan-- and his many books and lectures on the same topic
You will find that we consume Corporate Products. Not 'real food'.
I consume raw milk. It is very healthy. I consume my garden vegetables and store my grains and purchase a bushel of har d red spring wheat from the Amish and grind it for my REAL FOOD.
What most eat is killing them slowly. Reason for the massive dental problems as well.
Read Weston Price and his book:
"In 1939, he published "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration", a book that details a series of ethnographic nutritional studies performed by Price across diverse cultures.
Some of the cultures studied include the inhabitants of the Lötschental in Switzerland, the inhabitants of the Isles of Lewis and Harris in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland, the Gaeltacht areas on the western islands of Ireland, the Eskimos of Alaska and Canada, the Native Americans, among the inhabitants of New Caledonia, Fiji, Samoa, the Marquesas Islands, Tahiti, Rarotonga, Nukuʻalofa, Hawaii, the Masai, Kikuyu, Wakamba and Jalou tribes of Kenya, the Muhima of Uganda, the Baitu and Watusi of Rwanda, the Pygmies, and Wanande in the Congo, the Terrakeka, Dinka and Neurs of Sudan, the Aborigines of Australia, the inhabitants of the Torres Strait, the Māori of New Zealand, the Tauhuanocans, Quechua, "Andes Indians", "Sierra Indians" and "Jungle Indians" of Peru.
In his studies he claimed to have found that plagues of modern civilization (headaches, general muscle fatigue, dental caries or cavities, impacted molars, tooth crowding, allergies, heart disease, asthma, and degenerative diseases such as tuberculosis and cancer) were not present in those cultures sustained by indigenous diets. However, within a single generation these same cultures experienced all the above listed ailments with the inclusion of Western foods in their diet: refined sugars, refined flours, canned goods, etc."
Sorry to take up bandwidth but its important to note the modern degradation of FOOD.
It takes more than chewing energy to eat beans. First, you either have to gather them, farm them, or work for money to pay for them. The energy necessary to do one of those things is certainly 'economically relevant', and the EROEI is certainly not astronomical. (Well, maybe if you're Bill Gates...)
Getting sun burned trumps any bean. Just think of all the energy you can absorb sitting outside in the buff! Hell, refining oil is an energy losing process, we should just pump it from the ground and into our living rooms. Who cares if it the energy is in a usable form anyway? We need more net energy and we need it now! EROEI4EVER!11!!!11
Sitting outside?
Yes the body creates vitamin D from sunlight.
Yet how many people actually get enough sun? And its considered very poor form to actually 'sweat' in New York City!!!!!
So we are deficient due to modern bullpen work stations and not being a 'RedNeck' who gets plenty of sun and hence vitamin D from working in the soil. Or out on the lake setting out trotlines.
Many decencies in modern food and I might add that the EROEI for Doctors is great due to the resulting poor health of modern man.
4 million years of the human life form on earth and only of late have we been blessed with so very many health care professions. Orthodontics for the bushman? Dental Braces for the Masai? How did they ever survive?
What is the EROEI of sunlight hitting ones neck as he plows behind his mule? Or the C,D and E and K2 in his diet? All that his city cousin must pay for over the counter or visits to the physicians. Real exercise instead of running on a threadmill after driving 20 miles to get to it? Or a round of golf riding in a cart and occasionally taking a real swing with the clubTh and perhaps 3 drops of sweat are exuded? Perhaps not. The cost of admission to the 'club'. Ahh so. I once caddied and saw it all...long ago.Before carts even.
What is the EROEI of golf , one wonders?
From the above map there appears to be no corn ethanol industry in
Oklahoma. Do0es anyone know if and why this is the case?
Not sure, maybe there is a minimum. I have personally helped distill about 100 gallons for various folks. Did it in late December so we could double our legal allotment. Went home with ten gallons of moonshine. Took me three years to drink it.
Edit: Gulf Shores, Alabama.
This forum is knowledgeable enough to know that biofuels have nothing to do with energy and a lot with many other things.
Just one: Brazil had good reasons to use sugar cane: it had no $$$ to buy oil.
But in Western world...gimme a break. A trillion of good and bad reasons to do it, but energy per se is not one of them.
It's like tar sands. At some moment in the future we will not worry about having EROI below one, because input will be gas or (read my lips) nuclear energy and output will be oil. And oil will not count as energy in the equations but as OIL with its petrochemical and energy density (transportation) properties.
Welllll, that bit about the oil sands IS curious, considering fuels from there comes to the US market at the same EROEI ("The EROEI on this process is about 5." per Oil Sands Truth - Shut Down the Tar Sands website) as that from any of the imported heavies, eg. Venezuela, S.A., etc.
Criticisms lacking even rudimentary credibility actually hurt the cause you're trying to promote.
It is 5 on the bitumen upgrading step. Overall some processes are already running negative (below 1) but are economically viable because of price difference between gas (cheap for now in northern Alberta) and oil - but still need $60 per barrel oil to make money (and possibly loose energy).
Tar sands are source of OIL not source of energy. Limited to a few Mbpd at that with sizeable environmental impact. Just like corn.
PS. What am I trying to promote?
I've investigated this quite thoroughly and have NEVER seen any rational document which might come even close to supporting your claim. Reference please (reliable technical).
This thread has some great information, and also lets us see what the left brain people think. My feelings are if an energy source does not have any positive energy return it should not be used. In any process there are always more cost that can ever be calculated. Ethanol is calculated to be close to a "wash", however that is only part of the story. How about the cost of detrimental use of land and contaminated water and water runoff. How about the terrible cost to almost all engines requiring millions to be spent on repairs to be made to those engines. The costs calculated to produce a source will never be less than calculated, but will almost always be higher as more and more information becomes available. Its sorta like building airliners. Engineers add up all of the materials, components, engines interior and etc to calculate the final weights. Almost everytime the airplane ends up much heavier than calculated.
I find it curious that the average estimates for the EROEI of corn ethanol are about the same as that of Stuart Staniford's thought experiment about the Net Energy of Pre-industrial Agriculture. I'm being speculative, but maybe corn is just corn, no matter how you burn it.
A few quick hits:
1)Energy form has value. We pay more per BTU for gasoline than for crude, or natural gas or coal. If we can convert natural gas or coal to liquid fuel more cheaply by using corn as a medium, that has value. We do not expect more energy to come out of an oil refinery than we put into it. We need not expect more energy to come out of biorefinery than goes into it.
2)Talking about the "EROI of corn ethanol" makes it sound as if this is an intrinsic value of the corn. How the corn is produced (irrigation and fertilizer), how (and how far) it is transported, and how the refinery is powered affect this more than a little. The current U.S. corn ethanol industry is not structured to maximize EROI, it is structured to maximize ROI. The EROI could be tripled 'simply' by burning ag waste to produce the refinery energy. Soil organic matter content and soil moisture can both be conserved by adopting 'no-till' methods.
3)The current levels of corn ethanol production mean American farm communities making a buck instead of going broke. That's social policy, not energy policy. It means domestic natural gas and coal filling American gas tanks instead of Middle Eastern oil. That's foreign policy or trade policy, not energy policy.
That is the best comment I have read in response to this post./\
The form of the energy is absolutely crucial. We have no shortage of gas or solid fuels, or of electricity, we have a shortage (or excessive usage) of liquid fuels. Using NG to power the corn to ethanol process should be compared to a gas to liquids process (e.g. methanol production) where the EROEI is about 0.75 at best, and even lower if analysed using this corn EROWI approach.
If the distillation is done with waste heat, or solar thermal, or burning biomass or MSW, then it is better still - who care how many btu's to the twig or can of garbage you are getting?
Corn ethanol should be compared to other methods of producing non-oil liquid fuels. AS to the question about whether we should be producing such fuels at all, instead of electrification, etc, well, that is indeed a whole different policy question.
Just to throw fuel on this fire, the liquid fuel EROEI of corn ethanol is in the order of 10:1. So to scale it up to replace all gasoline (10million bpd), would still use 1 mbpd of oil, and massive amounts of natural gas, land, water etc, BUT it would replace all the imported oil, which was the original objective. Whether it is the best way of doing it is a different question, and should be weighed against using CNG, electric cars, GTL, etc. All of which have low EROEI too, and none of them, except solar/wind/hydro electricity, make use of sunlight as input.
Corn ethanol may be a waste of taxpayer money, but it IS displacing oil.
How about LFROLFI? Liquid Fuel Return on Liquid Fuel Invested?
or just LF-ROI?
Hi Nick,
I have not seen that one before, but that would work. I have seen the fossil fuel return FFROI, which really amounts to the same thing.
I actually like the term "Energy Return Ratio", as it gets the word investment out of there. Then we can do Liquid Fuel Energy Return Ratio.
In any case, I think it is an important distinction,that we put gas (or other non liquid) fuel in, and get liquid fuel out.
It is only because we value liquid fuel so much more highly than solid or gas that we are making ethanol, otherwise we could just burn the corn directly in a steam engine powered car.
If the makers of this steam engine have their way, that would be entirely possible.
http://www.cyclonepower.com
Energy Return Ratio's not a bad idea. In this case, we could simply say Liquid Fuel Return Ratio.
It would be best, of course, if we simply taxed liquid fuel imports (or all liquid fuels) to reflect their external costs (the cost of oil wars, the cost of imported oil price shocks, both in the trillions, not to mention various forms of pollution), rather than try to subsidize domestic liquid fuels...but that's the political reality.
Yep, LFRR, it is. nice and simple to understand.
I agree with taxing liquid fuel imports. This makes all domestic sources (renewable or not) more competitive. Done in conjunction with mandatory country (or continent) of origin labelling, as is the case for almost EVERY other product, i think this would make a significant shift in consumption patterns. Who wants to use Saudi oil when you have to pay $2/gal extra for the priviledge?
This would also get around the European problem of importing biodiesel made from palm oil from slashed and burnt rainforest in Malaysia. If the imported fuel is taxed (renewable or not) then you are not at risk of swapping dependence on imported oil for dependence on imported biofuel.
This sort of price differential ($2) would encourage fairly rapid attempts to get off oil (hybrids, EV's transit, etc etc ). WE don;t need to replace oil entirely, just the (off continent) imported part would do fine, for now.
Given that Canada is about to build a new pipeline to send oilsands oil to the west coast and on to China, what is going to happen to US overseas oil imports?
I think we do!
in a normal refinery the energy used in the refinery is not more than contained in the end product
I'm sure you don't mean what you say here... there is a common conflation of the energy potential of a commodity and the notion of energy inputs..
if I stick a barrel of crude into a refinery and get out 0.9 barrels of gasoline I didn't use 1 barrels worth of energy in the refinery I used 0.1 barrels worth.
this is how people end up understating the energy return of crude oil.
Do you disagree with the point of the comment you quoted that even if the EROI of corn ethanol were precisely 1.00, there would be economic value in producing it for use as motor fuel IF the $/BTU for motor fuel were sufficiently higher than the $/BTU of the input energy (primarily NOT oil, currently)? Note that I do not discuss whether a price gap of sufficient magnitude currently exists. Given that most here would agree that peak coal and peak natural gas are both some decades behind peak oil, and that the primary consumptive use of oil (transportation) has low fuel switching capacity, I suspect this gap will get bigger rather than smaller (in the mid term).
Indeed, the conversion efficiency of a bio-refinery isn't the same as the EROI of corn-ethanol. It seems to me you're misrepresenting the subject matter of the keypost.
That's nonsense. It's like saying that "No Child Left Behind" is social policy, not education policy. Of course many policies have social and trade and diplomatic motivations. That doesn't mean that they have nothing to do with the subjects they have to do with.
I apologize for any confusion I may have caused thru careless prose. There are of course energy inputs to corn before it reaches the distiller. A few lines down in the same comment I made reference to several factors other than refinery process power in the existing EROI of U.S. corn ethanol production. I was including the upstream energy input to the corn as an energy input to the refinery (in the form of feedstock). Refinery process energy makes up about 2/3 of the energy input accounted for in corn ethanol EROI calcs. I admit I was neglecting downstream energy (which is also worse for ethanol than conventional fuel).
If the claim is that ethanol is pointless as energy policy due to low net energy, it seems worthwhile to point out that the policy aims and effects are not confined to the energy policy sector. I apologize if my rhetorical flourishes annoy you.
Before E10 was mandated 12 months of the year up from 5 months, coworkers were complaining that their mileage went down 10 percent whenever the switch to E10 was made.
So even though ethanol has less energy than gasoline, the cars seem to use that ethanol with a lot less efficiency. Instead of a 3.5 percent decrease in gas mileage with E10, people were seeing a 10 percent decrease in gas mileage.
On the other hand an E85 test did use about the expected 40 percent more fuel.
http://www.edmunds.com/advice/alternativefuels/articles/120863/article.html
The Ethanol boondoggle is paid coming and going, subsidies for farmers and refineries, and extra costs for fuel users.
David I can imagine you're feeling a bit frustrated at some (many) of these comments. The problem of opening up what is essentially a scientific discussion that has (apparently) subtle nuances that the non-scientists don't quite get is fraught with pitfalls.
[snarky comment on]
As I read these comments I discern four basic themes reflecting what I suspect are the basic motivations of some of the commentators.
1). Those who actually do understand the basic physics, see the relevance to the economic questions (because in the end economic goods result from physical work, meaning energy of the right kind was expended), and have reasonably good questions about the details of such an analysis. No problems, good discussion starters.
2). Those who have an intuitive grasp of the notion that it takes and expenditure of energy to obtain a greater amount of energy (of the right type) to power economic activity. But they may lack the physics necessary to grasp some of the nuances and get tangled up in thoughts like "such and such (a seemingly non-energy input like entrepreneurship, for example) is not taken into consideration, therefore the value of EROI is limited". They fail to realize that there was actual work done to produce "such and such" at one time, or to move it to the point of use, and that that energy is just as relevant to the analysis if we had a way to measure it.
3). Advocates, like x, who have a favorite alternative energy horse in the race and see EROI as something of a threat to their winning the race. They are actually correct in their perception that EROI analysis, if done in the same fashion as cost accounting is done in a value-added chain might very well show that there is little if any net energy gain from pursuing large-scale implementations of their advocated solution. I suspect some have financial interests at stake. They end up discounting EROI as a legitimate tool for understanding the real physical energetics, some even going so far as to claim "energy is an abstraction"!
4). Staunch neoclassical economists, defending their "intellectual turf" who maintain there is no relevance of energy matters to economic science (they haven't yet realized that the juxtaposition of those last two terms forms an oxymoron) except as a commodity like any other. They assert their superiority in grasping the economic significance of economic activity and never consider that ALL such activity is the result of real physical work (including that biochemical work that goes on in the brain) and that means energy has been consumed in a one-way street.
There may be other, more subtle motivations involved, but you get the idea. Unfortunately some of these long comment threads that get off on back and forth arguments tend to miss the value of the article as they duke it out over definitions (many half-baked) and meaning. Perhaps a lot of confusion and misrepresentation might be avoided, and articles like this might engender serious discussion, if more of the people in groups 2-4 would take their fingers from the keyboards and get a copy of Howard T. Odum's, "Environment, Power and Society for the Twenty-First Century: The Hierarchy of Energy". Most of the issues and questions surrounding things like energy flow, transformity, work, and energy balance were answered long ago and shown to be as relevant to economic activity as ecological systems. But, of course, some people are not really interested in becoming educated. They are really only interested in obfuscation in order to advance their "cause".
[snark off]
Question Everything (but be sure you have a background education in the subject before doing so - there really are dumb questions!)
George
George:
A thoughtful overview of this site, and well said. Thank you. And thank you for continuing to refer readers to H.T.Odum's Environment,Power and Society.
And thank you again, David, for an excellent study that frames the corn ethanol issue squarely and fairly. You probably expected the troll attacks; we do have our share, and unfortunately dispute with them can divert what might otherwise be productive discussion.
Modern times, mon.
Of related interest, the US Department of Energy last week issued a report on economic feasibility of an ethanol pipeline from Midwestern production areas to East Coast demand centers. Feasibility depends on higher demand (a 15% or higher ethanol content required in gasoline) and government incentives such as loan guarantees to the pipeline companies. DOE found that pipeline throughput would have to be 4.1 billion barrels per day, compared with a projected 2.8 bbd based on projected current demand. The “feasible” pipeline would be almost 20 times larger than a US$3.55b pipeline proposed by POET and Magellan Midstream Partners. Most news accounts gave a positive spin, along the lines of "feasible under certain circumstances" without details, but this one is forthcoming about the difficulties.
http://dailyreporter.com/blog/2010/07/21/study-casts-doubt-on-ethanol-pi...
IMO a view that government subsidies rule out an innovation or development in the energy system is naive, however. Current US subsidies for fossil fuels are enormous, and subsidies for corn ethanol are much greater than for true renewables including wind and solar. And behind advocacy for shifting the energy system to massive nuclear baseload one finds that the huge costs are to be borne largely by government. Since energy undergirds our industrial civilization, ongoing efforts to direct government resources to the metamorphosing energy system can be expected to dominate our political and economic life. Forcing attention to EROI can help reveal the most sustainable course, but it’s going to take a concerted effort. This is really important research! Thank you!
[Edited to correct units, but nobody noticed the error!]
Уважаемый автор. Пожалуйста, не сочтите за дерзость, но я хотел бы высказать одно замечание.Я, как блогер со стажем, причем довольно немалым, хочу сказать Вам, что в целом у Вас все получается замечательно, и блог однозначно будет жить!Но вот лично мне, хотелось бы видеть какую-то живость в подаче материала. Как говорится, "чтобы за штаны" цепляло :) Но это мое личное..
Google translate:
Dear author. Please do not consider for my impertinence, but I would like to make a NOTICE as a blogger with experience, and quite a good deal, I want to tell you that, in general, you get all the wonderful and unique blog will live! "But me personally, I would like to see some liveliness to the presentation of the material. As the saying goes, 'to the pants''s creative:) But this is my own ..
Please correct if you know Cyrillic.
The blogroll link to EROI Institute does not work. Nor can I find a record on whois.
I don't know if this link refers to the EROI Institute that Charlie Hall had, but everything that was there has been consolidated to the Biophysical Economics website. David can confirm.
George
Уважаемый автор. Пожалуйста, не сочтите за дерзость, но я хотел бы высказать одно замечание.Я, как блогер со стажем, причем довольно немалым, хочу сказать Вам, что в целом у Вас все получается замечательно, и блог однозначно будет жить!Но вот лично мне, хотелось бы видеть какую-то живость в подаче материала. Как говорится, "чтобы за штаны" цепляло :) Но это мое личное..
Ok, now we are getting Cryllic spam? Is someone activating a Manchurian Candidate around here. Maybe it's me?
Maybe its just me but I still feel with going with plants like Switchgrass with is both a perennial and self-seeding crop rather than a food product, requiring high fertilizer, high water use might be more of the answer. This means farmers do not have to plant and re-seed after annual harvesting. Once established, a switchgrass stand can survive for ten years or longer. Unlike corn, switchgrass can grow on marginal lands and requires relatively modest levels of chemical fertilizers. Overall, it is considered a resource-efficient, low-input crop for producing bioenergy from farmland or even areas that are currently not used for farmland because food crops would take to much fertilizer and water.
Beware the switch grass koolaid.
It isn't going to work like that.
Consult any basic university level biology text covering flows of materials thru ecosystems, or any ag text dealing in the basics of managing land and crops.
You may have to do a little thinking for yourself after reading and understanding the principles involved in order to understand my reference to koolaid.
The fact that some ag professors are pushing such near something for nothing schemes simply proves that ag professors are just as fallible as the rest of us.
Your are probably right, only mother nature would grow native plants that covered the majority of the country that don't require help from man, man would never be stupid enough.
Hi Folks,
As I alluded in a previous comment , one of the biggest problems is with our linear systems, and as Charles Hall has also demonstrated, there are other systemic effects on EROI such as the energy cost of the distribution system. With fuel crops, there are also further hidden costs such as soil and aquifer depletion.
Also there is the problem of hidden embodied energy; for example solar panels while seemingly an ultra green source of energy, actually have a large embodied energy in their manufacture (see Hall’s chart here ) such that the EROI is only 4:1 – for an average efficiency panel of say 25 years life span in a UK climate that would mean you’d have to run it for over six years (dependant on the sunshine!) to see any net gain. Also trying to figure out what that embodied energy is is a nightmare: what energy overheads do you include? the energy mining the raw materials? the energy of surveying and finding them in the first place? the energy cost of the workers driving to work to build the panels? the energy cost of the pizza delivery guy when they have pizza for lunch? Pretty soon one comes to the realisation of the whole hyper complexity of any system.
While EROI is a good indicator in linear systems, what we need is a move towards understanding and applying cyclical systems, that utilise non-equilibrium thermodynamics using coupled cycles to produce a systemic steady state. The paradigm shift needed in moving society towards this sort of thinking is probably bigger than all previous shifts in human thought, yet alone consideration of the concomitant structural shifts needed in western developed society.
Sharon Astyk in her “Depletion and Abundance” speaks of Teodor-Shanin and his theory of Peasant Economics; that:
Three quarters the worlds population make their living (and I stress living not money) from some sort of farming activity, through to selling stuff at market or working odd jobs and handicrafts (ibid). This points to an emergent reality of coupled cycles, and while a significant amount of the energy flow that drives this system comes from fossil fuels, a large part still comes from the natural flows of biomass from insolation. Whether this Peasant Economy system can promote more sustainable practices and survive and overcome depletion problems mentioned above remains to be seen. However there are many many different ways of making a living other than growing monoculture crops and driving cars…
L,
Sid.