More Ethanol Debate

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

Google is your friend!

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/science/...inforests.html

The entire argument in this the article is that it is better to have rain forests then any cropland at all. They go so far as to suggest we should replant agriculture land with forest because it will create less carbon. That would just add to the problem of rising food costs. This article provides no solution other than to reduce carbon. My frustration comes from the complete lack of acknowledgement that foreign oil is bad. They actually recommend the we find ways to make fossil fuel more efficient rather than move to bio fuels. This article has one focus: to reduce carbon no matter what the cost and that includes food.

Not even close to realistic. Sorry we don't live in a world that allows for this rhetoric.

Additionally, look at the first comment. He makes a much better argument against this article than I ever could.

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0516-ethanol_amazon.html

This article is a year old and mentions nothing even remotely current that substantiates your argument. Additionally, it blames the U.S. for everything that is happening to the rain forests in Brazil. If you want to place blame start at the beginning. The U.S. and it's citizens are sick of being slapped around by OPEC. So we are looking to find a way to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. No one held a gun to the Brazilian government and forced them to replace forests with farmland. They want a piece of the market and are doing what they feel is necessary to get it. This article points the finger squarely at the U.S. and makes no reference to global influences that are driving the non-OPEC world to another fuel option.

http://www.worldlandtrust.org/news/2...diesel-and.htm

This article states at the top that it is personal opinion. You've got to be kidding. Not worth my time to read. And again, it points to the President Bush as part of the problem. No, mention at all of global influences.

http://www.rainforestportal.org/shar...x?linkid=93923

By far the best article you posted.

This is a current article and had a great conclusion. (quoted above)

However its references to global warming and carbon debt show that it is completely oblivious to the fact the the earth has been on a cooling trend for the last 5 years and the polar caps are regrowing as well. Carbon debt is a complete lie and if all this farmland contributes to global warming then why is the earth cooling down in spite of all this new farmland?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17500316/

Yet another article bashing the U.S. for trying to find an alternative to crude oil...

Otherwise this is a great article, even though it is over a year old, and says more to prove that ethanol is viable then it does to say it is harmful to the environment/rain forests.

Most of these articles are one sided and cling to global warming with no acknowledgement of the earth's reduction in temperature, or the need to reduce the refinement and consumption of crude oil.

[GTAHVIT]

Article on the viability of Cellulosic Ethanol. It's not the most exciting read but has some very relevant information.

http://www.trade.gov/press/press_rel...ort_011708.asp

Unlike corn-based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol is manufactured from materials in biomass, such as crop and forestry residues, energy crops, and wood waste. Consequently, it has negligible impacts on the price of food, and does not emit as much greenhouse gas.

Some of the key findings indicate that crop producing industries and their suppliers would benefit; annual benefits for U.S. consumers would total $12.6 billion if cellulosic ethanol production increased; U.S. crude oil imports would be 4.1 percent lower if 20 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol were produced in 2020, which is about 460,000 barrels per day or approximately 40 percent of current crude oil imports from Venezuela; the worldwide price of oil and the domestic U.S. fuel price would be 1.2 percent and 2.0 percent, respectively, lower than projected.

And another.
This article speaks to both sides of the corn based ethanol debate but shows universal support for cellulosic ethanol.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354350,00.html

At the same time, however, lawmakers reiterated their support for making ethanol production from cellulosic feedstocks -- wood chips, switchgrass and even garbage -- commercially viable. The same farm bill provides $400 million for cellulosic ethanol research and development.

Shimkus, whose state has one of the biggest ethanol producers in Archer Daniels Midland Co., supports the mandate and sees heavy reliance on corn as a feedstock only temporary. "It's a bridge (to) cellulosic ethanol and we can't jettison the present and not get to the future," he says.

[DGthe3]

We need a popcorn smiley. I normally like to take part in these discussions, but I will just watch this time.

[blaSSt]

Originally Posted by gtahvit

Article on the viability of Cellulosic Ethanol. It's not the most exciting read but has some very relevant information.

http://www.trade.gov/press/press_rel...ort_011708.asp

Good article. It does overlook one key point-the feedstock for making the EtOH. From the article:

U.S. crude oil imports would be 4.1 percent lower if 20 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol were produced in 2020,

If you look at my previous post we have used all the garbage, all the tires, 10% of the forests, and all the 'unused land' to produce 2.9 billion gallons per year. That is one seventh of the production assumed in that statement.

Its the same syndrome we've had for oil for years, we'll just make more. So where is the feedstock going to come from?

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by blaSSt

Good article. It does overlook one key point-the feedstock for making the EtOH. From the article:

If you look at my previous post we have used all the garbage, all the tires, 10% of the forests, and all the 'unused land' to produce 2.9 billion gallons per year. That is one seventh of the production assumed in that statement.

Its the same syndrome we've had for oil for years, we'll just make more. So where is the feedstock going to come from?

Blasst,

I'm admittedly troubled by your statements. I don't have a real argument against it if it's valid. but my own research has found nothing to substantiate it. So taking you at your word, My only response is this:

None of the articles on either side of the ethanol debate give any reference to the fact that there isn't enough resources to create Ethanol on the level needed to offset crude oil costs. I will keep searching today. I haven't focused my searches on "how much ethanol can be produced". It does make sense that trading food for ethanol will affect food costs. However there is no credible link to ethanol and rising food costs. There is a much more likely link to rising oil prices and high food costs. The argument can be made if we get enough ethanol to market we can reduce the food cost to the end consumer. I understand your reply would say that we can't produce enough ethanol to get there. I just have a hard time believing that every modern country would jump into such an endeavor without considering the production capabilities prior to committing to supplying a product like Ethanol.

No disrespect to you, but, you can't be the only one with this information and the rest of the ethanol world is oblivious to it. Every article I've found that debunks ethanol speaks directly to environmental impacts and it's speculated impact on food prices. Also, if you consider Ethanol made from by-products there is very little impact to the environment. As stated in the Fiji sugar article posted by Captain Awesome earlier.

It appears, that we see ethanol from different perspectives. I see it as a credible option, based on everything I've written in this thread, to crude oil, and will have a the rippling impact on global costs as it will introduce competition to crude oil.

You seem to feel that there aren't enough resources, natural or other, to make ethanol accomplish what I say it can. If you are right, then an entire industry along with very high ranking government officials across the globe are gonna look real dumb. I have a hard time believing NONE of them got it right.

[blaSSt]

gtahvit,

My posts use yields from Costaka, Future Fuels Inc., Startech, etc. I wish Costaka et.all. had more facts on-line. Digging the data is difficult:

switchgrass, on the best land, theoretically produces 70 gallons per ton and about 3 tons per acre per year.

Ethanol from 'garbage' has poor yield. Typical household garbage is expected to yield 4-10 gallons per ton. Waste average is 1000 lbs. per yer per person.

These I have found on the net. What I have never found is anyone doing the math to turn these yields into the volume of Ethanol required. I am disturbed no one else seems to be doing the mass balance.

Everytime I bring this up, the responses are things like "Grass grows everywhere..." "We produce more garbage per person than any other country..." "are you saying they should say 'the hell with it?"

What I am saying is it's a huge challenge. Ethanol has a role, but, it is not the answer.

Today the world has two sources of energy available on a grand enough scale to satisfy our demand, fossil and nuclear. Everything else is a drop in the ocean.

FYI. Here's an interesting forum discussion: http://www.ecogeek.org/ including post by Wes Bolen, CMO & Vice President of Coskata.

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

We need a popcorn smiley. I normally like to take part in these discussions, but I will just watch this time.

I have to admit, I was astounded you didn't jump in... Eventhough we don't always agree, I like to hear your points of view. Allways a good read.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by gtahvit

I have to admit, I was astounded you didn't jump in... Eventhough we don't always agree, I like to hear your points of view. Allways a good read.

well . . . you convinced me.

Ethanol was never supposed to be THE answer. It is to help aleviate your double problem of dependancy on foriegn oil and greenhouse gas emmissions from cars. Just like wind energy is not THE answer, nor is solar, or tidal, or anything else (well, maybe nuclear fusion which is 25 years away, just like it was 25 years ago). Most people who have knowledge on the subject will agree that corn ethanol is bad. Depending on who does the math, it may or may not take more oil to produce than equivelent energy that you get out of it. It is this massive volume of oil products (fertilizer, pesticides, fuel, etc) that is driving price of food up, not ethanol. But regardless, corn ethanol is a bad idea.

There are alternatives to create biofuels though. There is a tree that you can tap like a maple or rubber tree and it basically gives you diesel fuel. There is cellulose based ethanol. Chemically identical to sugar (corn or sugarcane) based ethanol but has practically none of the environmental or political/social drawbacks. There is a type of algea that contains lots of oils (which can easily be turned into fuel) that grows well in closed environments. Basically they fill big plastic bags with algea and water, inject carbon dioxide, expose it to the sun, then harvest the micro plants and get biofuel. Facilities running on this technology can be built anywhere, the more sun the better, ideal for desert areas where crops can't be grown.

Is any one of those technologies the answer? no. Are all of the viable? probably not. But grow the trees in places like Florida, build algea farms in Arizona, grow corn in the midwest, and switchgrass . . . nearly anywhere. It reduces the CO2 levels, which are rising due at least in part to human activity, and keeps money for energy within your country.



ps, I just searched and found this little guy.

[The_Blur]

bicycle > electric motor > sugar ethanol > corn ethanol > petroleum


That's all I'm going to say.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

bicycle > electric motor > sugar ethanol > corn ethanol > petroleum


That's all I'm going to say.

Where does renewable crude fit into that?

[CamaroSpike23]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Where does renewable crude fit into that?

behind petroleum...

[Twins]

True ethanol is crappy... 1 more CO and CO2 emissions, CO being toxic, 2 less gas mileage, 3 dependent on weather conditions, 4 price of food is already going up and if ethanol went into mainstream production food would cost an arm and a leg... the list goes on fellas ethanol is only a quick fix to gas not a long term replacement.. i think as a whole everyone should boycott gas stations that use 10% ethanol and ethanol stations all together i already do

[chadrcr]

Originally Posted by Twins

True ethanol is crappy... 1 more CO and CO2 emissions, CO being toxic, 2 less gas mileage, 3 dependent on weather conditions, 4 price of food is already going up and if ethanol went into mainstream production food would cost an arm and a leg... the list goes on fellas ethanol is only a quick fix to gas not a long term replacement.. i think as a whole everyone should boycott gas stations that use 10% ethanol and ethanol stations all together i already do

Part of the reason food is going up; is the price that truckers are paying for their fossil diesel fuel.....
As some one stated earlier... ethanol will not be THE answer.
But, until we find THE answer, we can utilize E-85, bio-diesel, hybrids, smaller cars, motorcycles, bicycles and mass transportation...... to REDUCE our independence on FORIEGN fossil fuels.
just my .03 cents (inflation)

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Twins

True ethanol is crappy... 1 more CO and CO2 emissions, CO being toxic, 2 less gas mileage, 3 dependent on weather conditions, 4 price of food is already going up and if ethanol went into mainstream production food would cost an arm and a leg... the list goes on fellas ethanol is only a quick fix to gas not a long term replacement.. i think as a whole everyone should boycott gas stations that use 10% ethanol and ethanol stations all together i already do

What by your definition is "True Ethanol"? There's only one kind of ethanol. It's the process by which it's made that is different. But one process is no "truer" than the other. So the reason you said this eludes me. But on to your points:

1: There are NOT more CO2 emissions. multiple studies have shown that corn based ethanol delievers a maximum of 30% reduction in emissions compared to gasoline. Yet more studies have shown that switchgrass, or any other cellulosic-based ethanol can yeild up to an 80% reduction in GHG emissions. Either way you cut it, there is a reduction.

2: True. but if it's cheap enough to make up the difference...who cares? 1 gallon of gasoline gives you about 1.35 gallons of E85 worth of mileage, right? So...if the E85 is $2.00 a gallon (double what some companies expect to produce it for), and gas is $4.00 a gallon (and rising...), then you have to pay $2.70 to go the same distance on E85 as you would on $4.00 of gasoline. You see that as a problem?

3: Switchgrass and waste can grow anywhere under most any conditions with little to no fertilizer or pesticides, but other than that, I cede this point: corn is dependeant on seasonal trends, like any other crop.

4: False, false and false. Even the guys at the UN, who seem to hate Ethanol because of this unfounded reason, are stating that ethanol production has had a maximum impact of 3% increase in food prices. Out of the 40-some percent increase that's being experienced right now. Food prices are going up around the world mainly due to three things:

• The crop-yeilds due to bad seasons are down slightly
• Have you been to the gas station lately? Prices are WAY up, yeah -- the truckers have to pay more, too.
• There are more mouths to feed, and they want to be fed more than ever before because of the same reason fuel is going up. third-world nations are starting to thrive, and grow. That means they can afford to eat more, and are doing it.

Please, continue your list.

It's a quick fix allright, no disagreements there, but we need it badly -- would you disagree? And eventually, as the transportaion-fuel landscape changes, ethanol may become a big player in a very diverse arena of fuels.

I happen to ONLY use 10% ethanol fuel. I've done the comparisons with using non-blended fuels.....and the blended stuff is actually giving me better milage in my Cobalt than regular fuel. Don't ask me to explain why, because I can't -- all I know, is that it does. And these evil gas stations are selling gas for at least .10 cheaper than those who don't blend their fuels. AND, whatever you think of the fuel, I am guaranteed that 10% of my money is not going overseas to the oil sheiks. I'll keep my E10, thank you very much!