Ethanol Exposed
Timely article on Ethanol and the fact that it takes more energy to produce than it gives in return. We kind of have a collective, faith-based delusion about ethanol because it meets the needs of so many factions. It gives our leaders a way to say they are doing something about dependence on oil. It gives environmentalists an alternative fuel to love. It gives corn growers and processors a fat subsidy. With all this faith, it seems that ethanol is unstoppable as a policy.
Still, common sense says that there is a reason we mine fossil fuels out of the ground instead of burning corn alcohol: Time and pressure has worked to cram energy into each molecule of oil. The work has been done for us for free. When we try to recreate a portable, super-combustible fuel with ethanol, we must expend energy to try and cram enough energy into each molecule of corn-based fuel. We are trying to make up for the pressure of continents leaning on the layers of rotting plants for hundreds of millions of years. Ethanol proponents are claiming we can magically make this equation balance by fermenting corn in big vats. And, lo! They have succeeded! Corn goes in and somehow, a viable, affordable fuel comes out, but there is a modern catalyst that makes it work. This catalyst is a special chemical called “government subsidy”. We are so fortunate to live in a time where money allows us to violate the laws of physics.
Good discussion of subject on Slashdot as well
July 19th, 2005 at 1:21 am
In Sweden all the people who used tax incentives to buy biofuel cars got really mad when they discovered that the price of biofuel is pegged to the price of gasoline. Biofuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel) in this case is not ethanol but diesel made by converting plant oils.
July 19th, 2005 at 11:40 am
Can you “huff” ethanol?
July 19th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
there is a company that distrubutes an inhaler for just that purpose. as
discussed here,
July 19th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
Hey! She links to The Bruni Digest, which generates quite a bit of chatter around here. At least between my sister-in-law and me.
July 19th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
I couldn’t make head or tail out of that one. She is critic of restaurant critic?
July 20th, 2005 at 6:52 am
Yeah. She’s a little nuts. She only makes sense if you read the critic himself. I only started reading the critic so I could understand the blogger’s jokes. Now my interest has spread to the whole “Dining Out” section of the Times.
Small world though. I kind of thought I was one of about three people who read her blog.
July 28th, 2005 at 8:03 am
Yesterday the Swedish Department of Transportation proposed a new regulation that would require ALL CARS to switch to ethanol! These people are nuts.
July 29th, 2005 at 10:15 am
Doesn’t sound like they thought that one all the way through.
July 29th, 2005 at 12:25 pm
Yeah. At least here in Minnesota, they grow the corn for the required ethanol. How much corn do they grow in Sweden?
July 29th, 2005 at 1:47 pm
Actualy, we grow lot of corn in Skane.
July 30th, 2005 at 1:01 am
Soeren, Please define ‘a lot of corn.’ Ever been to Iowa? What I see around me are a lot of sugar beets and rape seed and wheat. The US grows a third of the world’s corn, but Sweden is not even listed (http://nue.okstate.edu/Crop_Information/World_Wheat_Production.htm).
I’ve tried growing corn myself in our garden here (in Lund). In Minnesota its pretty easy to get nice sweet corn or popcorn, but it just didn’t work here. You never see native Swedish sweet corn sold in ICA.
No Mike, I don’t know what they are thinking! Ethanol vehicles often pollute more– incomplete combustion gives all kinds of carbonyl compounds and carbon monoxide. (But of course they produce less CO2 overall, but just to say that its a complicated issue.)
July 30th, 2005 at 1:41 am
Another bad idea for the environment is switching vehicles to natural gas. The problem is that a molecule of methane is 20 times worse in terms of global warming than a molecule of carbon dioxide. Leaks in the distribution system and vehicle, in addition to emission of unburned natural gas, mean that these supposedly ‘green’ vehicles are worse for the environment than those running on gasoline or diesel.
Ethanol fails two tests– energy efficiency and reduction of air pollution/smog. What’s the point? I think we should do whatever possible to help the global and regional environment (especially including research) but this kind of pie-in-the-sky-program-allowing-politicians-to-brag-and-feel-good-about-themselves-while-doing-nothing-to-solve-the-problem-in-real-terms-and-costing-the-taxpayers-lots-of-money is exactly whats wrong with Swedish politics today. One great alternative by the way is hybred vehicles and another great way to reduce fossil fuel combustion is to simply drive your car as little as possible. Stay at home with your family, ride your bike, take a bus, all are great alternatives and will reduce your carbon footprint.
August 4th, 2005 at 11:44 am
Did you bother to READ the slashdot article? The fact is that they are including the energy from the SUN for growing the corn. Of course then you have to put in more energy than you get out of ethanol. Except for the fact that the sun’s energy if *Free* and non-polluting.
The fact is that for a production environment you get about 1/3 more energy than you put in to make it.
Stop listening to the FUD and do better research.
August 5th, 2005 at 12:16 pm
Me doing better research wouldn’t help because I don’t have any money to invest in ethanol plants. If it was such a good idea then why is there a need for public subsidies? Ethanol is economic in some places like Brazil (on the equator, lots of sun, lots of water), but only if you include the energy they obtain from burning the waste– sugar cane stalks, etc. And if you use the sun’s energy to grow corn to make ethanol then presumably you are not using it to grow something else like soybeans, sunflowers or sweet peas, so it seems to me that the sun should be considered in the balance.
L, what do you make of Pimentel’s study?
August 8th, 2005 at 9:27 am
Also answer the question of why ethanol plants are powered with fossil fuel. If they are founts of a marvelous source of energy, why don’t they power the plants themselves with that energy?
August 9th, 2005 at 7:25 am
Here’s my top 10 list of things to do instead of investing in ethanol plants:
1. Wind farms
2. Hybred vehicles
3. Expand the system of pollution credits (e.g. Sweden has just bought futures on emission of Russian greenhouse gases. What does this mean? It means that it is a lot more effective for Sweden to meet Kyoto emissions standards by improving the efficiency of a Russian plant than a Swedish.)
4. Invest in research on fuel cells
5. Invest in research on photovoltaic cells
6. Invest in research on biofuels
7. Drop out. Tune in.
8. Get people to drive less! Ride your bike. Walk. Stay at home and write instead of consuming
9 and 10 Keep those nuclear plants running and keep an eye on them!
August 9th, 2005 at 10:04 am
When we dropped some of our stuff at a storage center, I was intrigued by the hall lights that were on timers. You walk in, turn the timer on and you have lights for a while. You leave and they shut off automatically. I imagine they save a good deal of electricity
Kate said that when she lived in Austria in the 1980’s every building had lights on timers in the hallways.
These days, we have cheap motion detection technology that could make this even slicker.
This is one of the thousands of little things we have not implemented. Why haven’t we? I’m not sure. Cheap energy? Non-regulatory philosophy? Ignorance?