From The Energy Bulletin news roundup, A series of articles about ethanol, posted on 1/15/07. Ethanol will help, but it isn't going to save us and there are issues around it. Also, from 1/21/07 a series of articles about biofuels and the dark side of chasing corn for fuel is manifesting in Mexico on the corn tortilla market. That issue came up in the 1/14/07 roundup as well. Are the concerns a case of a self-fulfilling prophecy because we keep yammering about them, or is it really the real deal?
ETA 10:15 PM: For those of you who really feel the need to OD on the question of ethanol, I present an August 2006 discussion thread specifically about ethanol from The Oil Drum. Robert Rapier shares an email exchange he had with Michael Wang, Vinod Khosla, and "Tom" from an unidentified agency (my money is on DOE), along with the feedback from Drum members. Rapier's post highlights the difficulties the average layperson (including self) has with the information we receive on this issue.
2 comments:
Everthing I have read tells me that ethanol will hurt, not help, and that we are dangerously deluding ourselves by vesting in faith in alternative fuels.
Almost every calculation that factors in ALL the costs of ethanol and other alternatives comes up with a NEGATIVE ERoEI. At this time it costs almost as much to produce a gallon of ethanol as a gallon of gasoline, and you need a third more ethanol to equal the same amount of gasoline. When you calculate the amount of farmland necessary to produce the stuff in the quantities necessary to fuel any substantial portion of our 200 million cars and trucks, it looks impossible.
And it also looks insane. Why would anyone spend a barrel to produce less than a barrel? But that is the power of self-delusion.
It would be more productive to make the necessary adjustments to reduce our fuel usage by 50% or more over the next 10 years, but this is nothing anyone wants to contemplate, and our politicians sure as hell don't want to talk about it.
Yet the process of making those adjustments and arrangements- like rebuilding the railroads and revamping our zoning and building practices- would not only bring us much better results but would also help build a new economy that isn't based on imported fuel. Most of all, our lives would be much more comfortable and convenient even if by some miracle another couple of trillion barrels of sweet crude were to pop up somewhere.
This thread at the Drum certainly highlighted the confusion folks have with understanding the inputs that lead to the conclusion that producing ethanol is not an efficient use of crude oil, coal or natural gas. You have to consider the entire cycle, and consider it in terms of BTUs. Skimming the thread it was evident that particular notion was getting muddled by at least one respondent. There was also a brief discussion on the subsidy issue.
The fact that the fuel itself is less efficient gets lost in the process. Rapier reported way down in that thread that Wang had emailed him after the initial exchange (wherein Wang bowed out) and acknowledged the confusion.
The bottom line, as you note, is that we can't hang our hat on ethanol, or any biofuel. They can contribute to a reduction in fossil fuels, but are an economic alternative only when gas prices soar. We aren't paying the full price of ethanol now due to subsidies. That's why it's being produced.
Post a Comment