Ethanol and why it's wrong
Biologist David E. Pitts wants farmers, fuel producers, and the government to stop the development of ethanol or at least stop devoting so many resources to the alternative fuel. Why? - More oil and diesel will be consumed to farm corn fields set aside for ethanol. He calculates it takes seven times more land to produce one year's worth of ethanol than to feed an average American. The result is more pollution, not less, with ethanol.
- Corn is an inefficient source of simple sugars used in the production of ethanol. Scientists have to develop more costly methods to convert corn when sugar cane is a more effective and simpler source of ethanol.
- He calculates it'll take five times the amount of land currently set aside for crops in the U.S. to grow enough corn to fuel the current number of cars in the U.S. alone.
- He questions the ethical issue of diverting foodstuff to fuel vehicles when there are more than two billion starving people in the world.
[Source: Springfield News-Leader]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
doug delano 2:57PM (7/08/2006)
I guess Pitts is one of those do-gooders that thinks the u.s. is responsible to feed all the losers in the world. maybe he's a muslim whose main goal in life is to make as many baby muslims as he can, and then have their muslim leaders hold us hostage for their bloody oil. Wouldn't it be something if those same leaders led their people out of the middle ages through education and offered them at least some enlightenment. i have a hard time buying into his thinking when the world's leadership denies that there is an overpopulation problem and people like pitts wants you/me to exacerbate this serious problem by throwing food at it...
Reply
Matt 4:12PM (7/08/2006)
1) The market will adjust, ethanol will mature, and it will pollute less. He's a little too stuck in the "now" of things.
2) Using oil finances, in part, nations which are very hostile to the USA.
Reply
Ping Wang 6:07PM (7/08/2006)
I have never liked Ethanol so I might be biased, but I agree with Pitts. Corn is not as good for making ethanol, so I doubt we will have as much success as the Brazilians and their sugarcane.
Also, why use ethanol when we can use biodiesel? Diesel is a more efficient engine, so we will have better mpg, and a renewable fuel. The only real drawback with biodiesel is that it might thicken during extremely cold weather, but that problem could be solved with a fuel tank warmer perhaps? If not, I see ethanol being used up north, but the more efficient biodiesel being used down south.
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 6:08PM (7/08/2006)
I see that there is *somebody* out there who can actually think, and isn't trapped into Political Correctness.
Ethanol is a lousy fuel for several reasons.
On top of that, corn is a lousy source of ethanol.
The only thing ethanol has going for it is that is isn't quite as stupid an idea as hydrogen. The thing that would put all of this into the proper perspective would be to end the subsidies for alternative fuels. Once you stop stealing from me to line the pockets of ADM stockholders, the only alternatives left will be the ones that make economic sense (like biodiesel).
To Doug and Matt: Being sensibly anti-ethanol does not equal to being pro-dinofuel.
Reply
Ping Wang 6:10PM (7/08/2006)
on second thought, maybe the north and south using different fuels would be a really bad idea.
Reply
Tom 9:39PM (7/08/2006)
Ethanol does NOT have to be made by corn. In fact, corn, as it has been stated in not effecient. Ethanol can be produced from any "waste" product that contain fibre, including many weeds.
Personally, I think a biodiesel hybrids make the most sense in the near term.
Reply
Ian Bruce 3:00AM (7/09/2006)
His analysis is based on an invalid premise. As Tom mentioned, there are other methods for producing ethanol besides corn. In fact, the US Department of Energy just released a detailed research agenda for the development of cellulosic ethanol as an alternative to grain-based methods.
The 200-page research roadmap—Breaking the Biological Barriers to Cellulosic Ethanol: A Joint Research Agenda—resulted from the Biomass to Biofuels Workshop held in December 2005.
Once you begin discussing growing non-fertilized biomass in areas otherwise unsuitable for food production, his entire cost argument falls apart.
BTW: David should pull his head out of his lab more often. The U.S. Agency for International Development, which oversees the distribution of most American food aid through its Food for Peace program, is dealing with an estimated $650 million shortfall due to cuts from the Bush administration.
You time might be better spent solving that problem, Mr. Pitts.
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 9:33AM (7/09/2006)
"Once you begin discussing growing non-fertilized biomass in areas otherwise unsuitable for food production, his entire cost argument falls apart."
Not quite. While it *is* possible to get a positive energy balance from ethanol (starting with deriving it from something besides corn), you are still dealing with a poor fuel that requires significant changes in current engines to properly deal with.
Compared to biodiesel, which
1) can be used as-is in a standard diesel engine.
2) is safer to handle.
3) is less toxic.
4) has much higher energy density.
5) can be made from stuff that is currently wasted.
6) can be economically derived from a number of sources; the current best appears to be algae, but there may be others discovered later.
#5 will change, of course. As WVO is used to produce biodiesel, the cost of WVO will rise, and the supply will not be enough to fill demand (both are GOOD things).
There are a couple of drawbacks to biodiesel, one of with is, what to do with all that glycerin. The world price of glycerin is already falling dramatically due to biodiesel production. We need to find more uses for glycerin.
Fortunately, glycerin is safe, biodegradeable, and nontoxic. It already has numerous uses in food and cosmetics. It can also be burned as a fuel. It isn't a really good fuel, but as a "waste" product, that could be an economical use for it, and could be used to reduce the cost of the biodiesel production.
Reply
Ian Bruce 4:49PM (7/09/2006)
Poor fuel? Significant changes?
Indy Racing League officials have detected no bumps in the road during the first year of a transition to an ethanol racing fuel.
"We've had zero problems since our first test at Phoenix," said Jeff Horton, the league's director of engineering. That includes six IRL races and 1,000 miles of testing yesterday at Richmond International Raceway for this weekend's SunTrust Indy Challenge.
This year the Indy cars are running on a blend of 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent methanol, another alcohol fuel. Next year the high-performance, open-wheeled cars will run on 98 percent ethanol and 2 percent gasoline.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&%09s=1045855934848&c=MGArticle&cid=1149188687019&path=!sports!auto
Reply
Extract 6:52PM (7/09/2006)
Bioethanol is an excellent choice for future fuel as it is possible to produce it from all kinds of organic waste. Novozymes and Danisco has developed enzymes that will break down cellulose to make it available for formenting to alkohol like sugar.
Biodiesel can unfortunately only be produced from a plant oil, so that will limit its availablity.
Reply
Tony 12:48AM (7/10/2006)
Come on people. Your trying to hard. think SIMPLE.
Yes we know corn is not the best thing to use to make E85. Its only a start and if you think about it, it wont be the only product used to make E85.
E85 IS the way to go and its the main way to go.
Yes BIO DIESEL use will be used a lot more inthe future, and thats a good thing. I would love to see all those 18 wheelers using it NOW.
E85 works, it makes sense, its clean, and it has been around for more years then you think.
They say you cant run it in older cars. Question .... does E85 corode rubber fuel lines?
does it corode alumium ? ......... NO.
hmmmmmmmmm
Reply
Schneegz 7:42AM (7/10/2006)
Mr. Pitts is correct on two counts.
1) Ethanol is a poor source of fuel when compared to gasoline and diesel.
2) Corn is a poor source of ethanol when compared to sugar cane.
However, he seems to assume that ethanol production will remain static. It won't. Technology will increase, and farmers may switch to crops that yield greater amounts of sugar that are suitable for North American climates, like sugar beets. Furthermore, ethanol production is already leading to the development of other methods of biofuel (ethanol and otherwise) production. That development will likely accelerate as the technology matures.
Biodiesel is probably a better alternative for powering our automobiles. However, a boom in biodiesel production and availability will have to wait until diesels become more popular in the US. Give it anther ten years, and I bet diesels will become common in pickups, SUVs and minivans. Then we'll see a big increase in biodiesel production.
Reply
Brett 8:29AM (7/10/2006)
Butanol. It can be generated from the same feedstocks as ethanol and its a better fuel than ethanol in just about every way. Check it out. www.butanol.com
Also, current ethanol fermentation processes can also utilize starch in addition to sugar.
Reply
Jeff 8:31AM (7/10/2006)
How about the fact that vehicles have been shown, in various tests, to get significantly poorer fuel economy with E85?? That would seem to negate many of the effects. Yes, it pollutes less, but if you use more, how much advantage do you have then?
Reply
MikeW 10:56AM (7/10/2006)
Lets see, 2 carbon alcohol-ethanol or 4 carbon alcohol-butanol?
84,000 BTUs/gallon for 100% ethanol, 105,000 BTUs/gallon for 100% butanol, Gasoline ~114,000 BTUs/gallon
So E70/E85 is a bad gasoline replacement.
And trying to get ethanol from corn is a bad way to get ethanol.
http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/apr2006/bw20060427_493909.htm?chan=autos_autos%20indexpage_insight
Although if the 10% ethanol was dropped from regular gasoline (Gas-ohol in the midwest), I might support those who want to try E70/E85-not going to happen because of Congressional mandate for 2.78% ethanol in gasoline
Reply
Edwin 10:58AM (7/10/2006)
For now, E85 has no advantages as most areas I've been to - E85 is priced at the same rate per gallon as normal 91 octane fuel. (Prices are sometimes equal to that of 93 octane). E85 prices should drop as the technology develops further than its current state. When the prices drop enough, the fuel economy of E85 wouldn't be as much of a problem financially, just more of an inconvenience for commuters.
Reply
Hans 11:48AM (7/10/2006)
"The only thing ethanol has going for it is that is isn't quite as stupid an idea as hydrogen. The thing that would put all of this into the proper perspective would be to end the subsidies for alternative fuels. Once you stop stealing from me to line the pockets of ADM stockholders, the only alternatives left will be the ones that make economic sense (like biodiesel)."Ending the subsides for alternate fuels is hardly the answer. The largest subsidy now is the use of the US military to protect the Persian Gulf oil trade. Sen,Richard Luger recently said that normal SU Navy operations on th Gulf wee $50 Billion annually, without including the cost of the Iraq War. That's about $1 per gallon of Middle East imports, or $3 per gallon if you include the cost of the war.
The problem with subsidies is not that they disrupt the market (which -in the case of oil- is hopelessly manipulated by barbarians), or that they wouldn't produce economic benefits in the long run, but that their inconsistent application prevents them from being effective.
Bio-diesel, ethanol and hybrids are all worthwhile technologies that will meet part of the need to replace Muslim oil, but the easiest way to reduce oil imports now is to switch from SUVs to small, European size cars. And the way to do that is just the way the Europeans did it: tax gasoline up to about $5/gallon.
The other choice is to send the Army permanently to the Middle East to try to guarantee cheap oil.
Reply
jcwinnie 8:36PM (7/10/2006)
If ethanol offers such a magnificent energy gain, then why don’t ethanol plants run on ethanol instead of coal and natural gas?
Reply
UK-KID 10:32PM (7/10/2006)
SPOT ON !!
So Many Useless Arguments
The Bottom Line Is That " If Ethanol Offers Such A Magnificent Energy Gain, Then Why Are The Ethanol Plants Not Run On Ethanol Instead Of Coal & Natural Gas"
Also Mr Pitts argument was "Corn Is Not An Efficient Source For Ethanol"
So if you have a good counter point, state it instead of just bashing the Scientist. I'll never understand you Yanks
Reply
Schneegz 9:05AM (7/11/2006)
"So if you have a good counter point, state it instead of just bashing the Scientist. I'll never understand you Yanks" ~UK-KID
Obviously, ad hominem attacks are a purely American phenomenon.
Reply