New at Reason

David Weigel | May 12, 2006

Ronald Bailey goes to the farm to find an "energy miracle" and comes up short.

Comments

|5.12.06 @ 8:22AM|#

Finally, it has to be asked, if producing ethanol is such a profitable idea, why does it need federal subsidies?

Profit is evil; anything worth doing needs to be spearheaded by the government.

|5.12.06 @ 8:58AM|#

Kudos for a reasonable view on the relative role renewable fuels can play in the energy mix...and all using simple math.

|5.12.06 @ 9:10AM|#

If I drink enough ethanol I can get a free ride to a lot of places.

|5.12.06 @ 9:23AM|#

And at that corn already gives me gas.

|5.12.06 @ 9:44AM|#

Uh oh. This will send the "Peak Oil" paranoia types into a fit.

|5.12.06 @ 9:48AM|#

why does it need federal subsidies?

If the bums aren't picking it out of the trash cans then there is no market for it.

After seeing City of God I am quite convinced that the United States needs to be more like Brazil.

|5.12.06 @ 9:58AM|#

Good article. Not mentioned is the fact that a gallon of ethanol contains less energy than gasoline -- I've seen estimates of 70% -- so a vehicle burning E85 will get about 25 miles to the gallon instead of the 30 it might get with gasoline. (30 x .7 / .85)

So on a cents-per-mile basis ethanol has to cost 70% as much as gasoline to be truly competitive.

Looked at another way, it would take 70 billion gallons of ethanol to replace the energy content of 1/3 of the 150 billion gallons of gasoline we use every year. If we can't site enough gasoline refineries, what makes it likely that we can site ethanol factories?

|5.12.06 @ 10:19AM|#

Mr. Bailey did a fine job showing just how much energy we extract from oil, and how hard it will be to replace.

As the price of oil climbs, many different fuels will become cost compeditive, and eleminate the need for subsidies.

Even now at $70/barrel, more oil will be economical to extract than a few years ago when it was being sold at $20/barrel. I've heard talk of re-opening oil wells in Pennsylvania, where there is still oil to extract at about $50/barrel cost.

|5.12.06 @ 10:45AM|#

I saw what looked to be a pretty good analysis of alternative fuels (including, of course, ethanol) in Popular Mechanics. Be sure to check out the PDF comparison chart, too.

|5.12.06 @ 11:13AM|#

Unsubsidized ethanol would be more price competitive if we weren't artifically raising the price of corn to begin with, not to mention sugar, which is part of the price raising process. High fructose corn syrup anyone?

Also, I haven't heard anyone say it yet anywhere, but just imagine a drought one year (or two or three) on ethanol prices if we ever got hooked on ethanol. Maybe we'd have congressional hearings on the weather?

|5.12.06 @ 11:21AM|#

hemp is a much more efficient source of biomass than corn. The only plant better suited to solving the energy crisis than help is sugarcane. corn isn't the right "tool for the job"

|5.12.06 @ 11:53AM|#

"Not mentioned is the fact that a gallon of ethanol contains less energy than gasoline -- I've seen estimates of 70% -- so a vehicle burning E85 will get about 25 miles to the gallon instead of the 30 it might get with gasoline. (30 x .7 / .85)

So on a cents-per-mile basis ethanol has to cost 70% as much as gasoline to be truly competitive. "

Dr Duck, you beat me to it. Based on practical experience with methanol-fueled race cars, I think your "70%" is optimistic.

How happy are American drivers likely to be when they find out that, after they have the engine management system in the Honda reprogrammed for a sigificantly richer fuel mixture, their mileage will go from 30mpg to 20 (and that cost per mile driven, not counting subsidies, rises)?

|5.12.06 @ 12:26PM|#

I'd like to see Ron do a similar breakdown with regard to Biodiesel.
There's a company here in Colorado that's already got the stuff for sale at the pump and is developing crops that are supposed to be optimized for growth in arid climates.

Blue Sun Biodiesel

They caught my eye when I saw a VW on the road a couple of weeks ago with the Blue Sun logo on it.

I find Ron's article to be somewhat cynical when he states the following:

"That means that with even the most optimistic calculation, in which one billion tons of biomass are converted into ethanol, the amount produced could ultimately replace one-sixth of annual U.S. oil imports."

I could be completely off-base here, but the way I see it, there's not going to be any one fuel to replace oil. There will have to be more than one kind of fuel, and more than one kind of method.

Also, I would be interested to hear what Ron thinks about other methods of creating oil, such as Thermal Depolymerization

As it stands, right now, I see a lot of different people and companies attacking this issue from many different angles. While we may not achieve true "energy independence" I think that anything that the future holds a lot of profit for those who can alleviate the increasing demand for energy for the average person.

/Two-by-two, hands of blue.

|5.12.06 @ 12:30PM|#

P Brooks,

I've wondered what has caused about an 8% reduction in fuel economy in my Prius this year. I know there are lots of factors, but my driving patterns is not one of them. I wonder how much the MBTE regulations have made a difference in the fuel.

|5.12.06 @ 12:32PM|#

Isn't sugar a labor-intensive crop? Would increasing biofuels trigger an increase in illegal aliens? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

|5.12.06 @ 1:04PM|#

Ron,


What kind of energy could be generated from landfills and other mass sources of garbage?

|5.12.06 @ 1:22PM|#

Russ 2000-

I have never seen a side by side comparison of ethanol and MTBE, but it would not surprise me to learn that the specific heat (I believe that is the appropriate term), or energy content, of MTBE is significantly higher.

Not strictly germane, but- I once saw a recipe for the fuel Mercedes Benz used in their Grand Prix cars in the 'fifties. It was 86 or 88 per cent methanol, with a fiendish concoction of toluene, acetone, benzene and assorted other paint thinners making up the remainder. I don't know what the specific heat was, but you can be certain that the exhaust fumes were not good for you.

Maybe (this is just a thought, now) we could import sugar cane and/or ethanol from Haiti. I have heard that sugar cane grows pretty well down there. We would be obliged, naturally, to shield our precious family farmers such as the Archers, et al, from any adverse effects of such competition.

|5.12.06 @ 1:59PM|#

Looks like "specific heat" is not the right term- it's been a long time since those high school science classes.

uncle sam|5.12.06 @ 3:10PM|#

Energy independence doesn't make sense anyhow.
Why should we speed up the consumption of domestically produced petro? When we run out, then we would be at a serious disadvantage.

John M. Joy|5.12.06 @ 4:07PM|#

Curious - anyone know anything about production and use of butanol as an alternative fuel, rather than ethanol?

My (admittedly VERY limited) understanding is that there's some promising research involving fermentation using various Clostridium bacteria (e.g. the Weizmann bacterium), but, by and large, the bugs tend to poop out before converting altogether too much of the biomass. (This would imply the quest for better bugs, I'm sure.)

So... any chem engs out there want to elucidate, elaborate, or (at least) editorialize?

JMJ

|5.12.06 @ 4:38PM|#

When using suugar to make ethanol, the cane is pressed to extract the sugar. The leftover plant matter, called Bagasse, is then burned to ferment the sugar. This is where alot of the fermentation energy comes from; studies from Pimentel and friends often ignore details like this.

Corn and switchgrass may also exhibit similar properties, making them more useful than dtractors claim; one thing I have heard is that corn ethanol uses the stover (stalk), and not the cobb, to produce the sugar to make the ethanol, thus not impacting the use of corn as feed as well. However I am not sure of this.

Switchgrass is also native to North America, it fed huge herds of buffalo for thousands of years, and shouldn't pose a threat to wildlife, as it does not need to be plowed under and replanted, its grass after all, almost as weedlike indestructable as bamboo roots.

One other thing on ethanol, it is a primary component to biodiesel. Biodiesel can replace or augment the existing diesel infrastructure right now. Ethanol grown from corn or switchgrass or sugarcane or whatever can be grown for full biodiesel use without being a real problem for existing crops.

Making the Oil comes from, currently, soy beans; which is a poor choice (thank you 3vil farm subsidies lobbyists). Palm trees and Jatropha Curcas are much better at producing oil than soy and have less impact on the land and wildlife.

Also most crop acreage (7/8) in the U.S. goes to make feed for animals to make meat; so the price of meat will rise with price of FarmFuel; fruit and fresh vegetables should not be affected greatly. Making enough biodiesel to replace gasoline is a much bigger problem, which I think could only be solved by somehow getting huge ponds of algae in the desert (or wherever) to do the trick. (in combination with much better engine and hybrid technology)

-sam

|5.12.06 @ 4:49PM|#

"One bushel of corn yields about three gallons of ethanol."

Ronald Bailey,
That SEEMS like way too much ethanol per bushel.

|5.12.06 @ 5:30PM|#

Somewhere along the line it might be helpful to realize that trying to agree on THE ONE best type of fuel is kinda silly. After all, prices are going to be determined by supply and demand more than anything else. I would probably want to use the fuel that gives me the most energy per dollar rather than the most energy per gallon, even if that means a certain amount of inconvenience. Certainly as supplies and demands change, the type of fuel that gives me that economy will change. I'd much rather leave the "fuels" question up to individuals than to some kind of consensus outside of the market. Home heating doesn't have 1 overall dominant fuel (gas, electric, oil, fireplace, etc.), so why should personal vehicle transport be any different?

As an aside, wouldn't biofuels be sensitive to things like drought?

|5.12.06 @ 10:23PM|#

"I would probably want to use the fuel that gives me the most energy per dollar rather than the most energy per gallon, even if that means a certain amount of inconvenience."

Something else to consider: Will I have to buy a new car to take advantage of these new fuels?

With Biodiesel, I don't get that impression, just gas 'n' go like with the current stuff. Ethanol evidently requires some modification to the fuel system to prevent it from becoming corroded.

|5.13.06 @ 12:52AM|#

"As an aside, wouldn't biofuels be sensitive to things like drought?"

Switchgrass and Jatropha Curcas are both drought resistant, though output may suffer; whereas corn and soy suffer heavily.

"With Biodiesel, I don't get that impression, just gas 'n' go like with the current stuff."

With biodiesel, one just needs to make sure:
The engine is -not- a high pressure system.
The fuel Hoses and other sensitive parts can take higher corrosion levels, most can; but older diesels usually need replacing these, which are cheap.
In colder climates it will need a bit more protection than normal diesel (additive heater or blanket etc).
Right now the worst problem is ensureing consistent fuel quality from providers.