DOE verdict: Ethanol is net energy positive
AutoWeek reports that in an attempt to silence ethanol critics the Department of Energy (DOE) points to a study done by Argonne National Laboratory and officially stated that ethanol yields more energy than is used to produce it. More specifically, the study calculates that it takes 740,000 British thermal units (BTU) of fossil energy to make and deliver 1,000,000 BTUs of cornstarch ethanol.
Critics, however, remain steadfast in their stance. Tad Patzek, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, says, "Every argument they make is bogus," and that even if the administration's optimistic assumptions are granted, ethanol at best breaks even.
The DOE's response to those critics so far has been that they don't account for the improving efficiency of ethanol plants or other benefits and adds that the results from cellulosic ethanol will look even better.
It's important to note that the Argonne study is one of several major studies. Beth Lowery, vice president of environment and energy at GM, notes that 9 of the 12 studies she's aware of conclude that producing ethanol has a net positive energy balance. She says that the discrepancies among the studies come from researcher assumptions. Without offering explanation, she adds that the Argonne study is the most important.
Regardless of the DOE verdict on the net energy balance of ethanol, it doesn't appear we're going to come to a decisive conclusion to the debate as a society any time soon. Too many critics distrust the Bush administration-led DOE and EPA.
A 3-page pdf highlighting key points of the Argonne study compiled by the the DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) can be found here.
[Source: AutoWeek]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jimmy 6:25PM (9/11/2006)
How many studies must contradict Patzek's flawed work before people stop listening to him ? It is also worth nothing that Patzek loves talking to the media and writing for non-peer reviewed outlets. It's also worth nothing that his real job is helping oil companies extract oil, not develop alternative energy.
Reply
Tony Belding 7:34PM (9/11/2006)
Why can't we let the markets sort this out? If it's not energy positive -- by a healthy margin -- then nobody will be able to make money from the ethanol fuel business, and it will fade away. Right? Oh, wait. . . the subsidies. This is why I don't like subsidies and government meddling in general. It skews the playing field.
Reply
Jimmy 8:39PM (9/11/2006)
Sadly, it is not a free market. The monoploy petroleum industry get loads of tax breaks and "R&D" subsidies. Ethanol advocate Vinod Khosla reports than will use their market control to put rival fuel companies out of business.
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 9:08PM (9/11/2006)
"9 of the 12 studies she's aware of conclude that producing ethanol has a net positive energy balance"
When I see ethanol plants that burn only ethanol, and still get a positive yield, I'll believe that you can achieve positive energy balance with ethanol. Until then, you might consider the possibility that the 3 studies that conclude that ethanol has a negative energy balance might be the correct ones.
And until you can produce ethanol without using any FOSSIL FUEL, it isn't 'green' in any meaningful sense of the word.
And it's still a lousy fuel.
Reply
Tony Belding 12:30AM (9/12/2006)
Elon Musk posted his opinions of ethanol on the Tesla Motors blog. This quote was particularly striking: "If you want to use plants most effectively as an energy source for transportation, the best way is to burn them whole (no processing needed!) in a combined cycle biomass electric generator at 60% efficiency and use the output to charge electric vehicles. That requires no technology breakthroughs, uses the full energy content of the plant, and is far more efficient than refining a small part of the plant or even most of the plant, using cellulosic technology, into ethanol to power the 20% efficient internal combustion engines of cars."
Reply
Alric 10:56AM (9/12/2006)
The percent difference in energy for ethanol production is smaller than the percent difference in auto mileage. Autos get 10-20% less mileage with E85. E85 is stupid.
Reply
Jimmy 1:16AM (9/13/2006)
Alric, the ethanol studies use standard energy units and not "miles per US gallon". Studies in have shown at least a constant BTU/mile rate for ethanol blends, so the "less mileage with E85" argument you make is completely unfounded.
It is possible given the high anti-knock (aka octane) and oxygenate properties of ethanol that it will perform better than a simple BTU analysis would indicate.
Reply
Gary Dikkers 11:39PM (9/13/2006)
Derrick,
There is actually a very simple thought experiment to determine whether ethanol has a positive energy return -- no need for studies by Patzek, Pimental, the Argonne Labs, or the DOE:
Just ask yourself why all industrial corn farmers and ethanol plants are addicted to fossil fuels?
If making ethanol from corn really returned more energy than it consumed, wouldn't farmers and ethanol plants long, long ago have broken their addiction to fossil fuel energy, and instead use the product they make as their source of energy? Why pay through the nose for fossil fuel energy when they have pipes at the plants they own spewing out a useable liquid fuel?
Corn farmers and ethanol plants can wave around paper studies from the DOE and Argonne Labs as much as they want, but it makes no sense to believe corn-to-ethanol is actually net energy positive until the day we see a corn farm and ethanol plant power themselves with the energy they make and still have enough left over to sell. That would demonstrate beyond doubt that corn ethanol is truly sustainable and renewable and would be the real peer review.
Regards,
Gary Dikkers
Reply
Jimmy 8:03AM (9/14/2006)
Gary,
Small scale farm based ethanol fuel was widely used in the USA during the early years of the twentieth century. After the dust bowl and WWII, there was an organized campaign by oil companies to eliminate ethanol fuel.
If you'd care to read more, Prof. Bill Kovarik is updating his book on the history of biofuels.
Reply
Gary Dikkers 11:44PM (9/14/2006)
Small scale farm based ethanol fuel was widely used in the USA during the early years of the twentieth century.
Jimmy,
I'd like to hear more why farmers didn't continue using it. If it was efficient, surely they would have continued. An oil company couldn’t twist their arms and force them to stop.
My personal guess is that making fuel ethanol then wasn't very efficient. At that time the EROEI of ethanol would have been well below one, since the technology of making ethanol from grain was no different than what backwoods hillbillies did to make moonshine.
At the same time, most petroleum still came out of the ground under its own pressure, without even a need to burn energy to pump it up. Right now the EROEI of gasoline from oil is about 10:1; in the 20s and 30s it was probably well over 50:1 -- easy to find, easy to pump, and easy to refine.
It’s doubtful that fuel ethanol from grain could have competed at all with the extremely inexpensive gasoline of the era. (And I mean inexpensive in both terms of energy expended and money.)
Instead of being an oil company conspiracy*, the reason fuel ethanol couldn't gain a footing then was more likely its inefficiencies. (Why it's only in the last few years that some scientists have decided the EROEI of ethanol is > 1, and even that is still debatable.)
Best regards,
Gary Dikkers
* I’m talking about fuel ethanol here, not the issue of whether the additive to increase the octane of gasoline should have been ethanol or tetraethyl lead. There’s little doubt the oil companies were heavy handed in that.
Reply
Jimmy 2:30AM (9/16/2006)
"I'd like to hear more why farmers didn't continue using it. If it was efficient, surely they would have continued. An oil company couldn’t twist their arms and force them to stop."
Hi Gary,
Answer:
First, there is a difference between efficient and cheap. Farmers were not making choices based on efficiency, but on cost and profit. Why bother making ethanol when oil was cheap and plentiful?
History:
Farm made ethanol history starts in Germany in the late nineteenth century. Petroleum supplies were imported and unreliable. German farmers liked ethanol powered otto engines for farm equipment. By 1906 ethanol production was 27 million gallons in Germany. 1906 is important for America as well, from 1864 - 1906 there was a high tax on ethanol (fuel and beverage).
Ethanol's future was dampen by the birth of big oil in Texas. By the 1920s petroleum was gushing out of Texas and it was very cheap, cheaper than ethanol. In Europe ethanol blends were widely used and they were used in the US as well, mostly in agricultural states. Still, petroleum became cheaper and cheaper. By 1931, oil was at a record low price ($6.11 a barrel in 1997 dollars). The Federal government imposed production limits and import tariffs to try to raise the price of petroleum.
Despite the low price of oil, the oil industry viewed ethanol as a threat. In 1933 the American Petroleum Institute began a campaign to discourage ethanol blended fuel. Note this is after the tetraethyl lead debate of the 1920s. They pressured gasoline wholesalers not to carry ethanol blends and hired private investigators to attack ethanol proponents. One such attacked proponent was Illinois representative Everett Dirksen who said, "Here you have the proof of how the insidious oil lobby works in order to defeat any measure or any individual who opposes their interests". Wow.. 73 years later that quote still sounds true! In 1940 an oil company lost an anti-trust case over their ethanol tactics, but it was too late to make any difference.
References:
Bill Kovarik, "Henry Ford, Charles F. Kettering and the Fuel of the Future," Automotive History Review, Spring 1998 (ethanol history)
University of Houston Digital History Home (Texas oil history)
Reply
Gary Dikkers 11:15PM (9/16/2006)
"Ethanol's future was dampen by the birth of big oil in Texas. By the 1920s petroleum was gushing out of Texas and it was very cheap, cheaper than ethanol. "
Isn't that what I said -- in the first half of the 20th century, gasoline was so cheap that fuel ethanol distilled from fermented grain was not competitive. In fact, I bet those ethanol stills even used some form of fossil fuel for their heat energy. (Something that ethanol stills continue to do to this day.)
"Farm made ethanol history starts in Germany in the late nineteenth century. Petroleum supplies were imported and unreliable. German farmers liked ethanol powered otto engines for farm equipment."
That made sense for Germany. Germany never has had any reserves of petroleum. Lots of coal, but no oil.
"They pressured gasoline wholesalers not to carry ethanol blends and hired private investigators to attack ethanol proponents."
If the oil companies actually did that, they were not very savvy. The laws of thermodynamics being what they are, there is no way ethanol could have competed on an economical basis with the low-priced gasoline of the era. And in fact, if we took away the subsidies, tax credits, and protective tariffs, ethanol still couldn't compete with gasoline.
One thing too many people overlook is that making ethanol isn't really about ethanol, it's about corn.
Over the last three decades we have subsidized agriculture to grow mountains of corn. Our corn farmers have gotten so good at it, that some don't know how to do anything else. They continue to grow billions and billions of bushels of the stuff. The real impetus for making ethanol from all that corn is that we have to use that corn for something -- afterall, Coke and Pepsi can only use so much high fructose corn syrup each year. The real reason for the ethanol push is to create another market for corn farmers.
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 11:42PM (9/16/2006)
"One thing too many people overlook is that making ethanol isn't really about ethanol, it's about corn."
Well said!
Reply
Jimmy 2:05AM (9/17/2006)
Gary,
Your position seems to be that subsidized petroleum is preferable to subsidized agriculture. You may wish for the agricultural and energy industries to be apolitical, but that is simply not going to happen.
All industrialized nations have agricultural subsidies. Petroleum is subsidized via huge tax breaks in the US and direct state ownership abroad (Venezuela, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, et. al.). The state owned petroleum companies are particularly non-transparent and prone to market manipulation.
You have already stated your disregard for peer-reivewed scientific studies. However, the majority conclusion remains that current ethanol production has a positive energy balance, mild GHG reduction and is domestically produced (results are even more favorable for biodiesel). In the near future cellulosic ethanol and non-food biodiesel can replace petroleum for transportation fuel in existing technology vehicles.
As biofuels are encouraged, of course farmers and agricultural industries will profit. Enterprises without profit tend not to occur! We will also have reduced vehicle pollution, reduced GHG emissions, a reduced trade deficit and a more stable energy market.
-Jimmy
Reply
Gary Dikkers 7:41PM (9/17/2006)
Jimmy said, "However, the majority conclusion remains that current ethanol production has a positive energy balance..."
Jimmy,
True, some have concluded that, but no one has yet to prove it with a real-world demonstration.
Through the centuries inventors have repeatedly claimed to have created the ultimate energy machine -- a device that would run forever creating more energy than it consumed.
No matter how sincere and persuasive those inventors were, the ultimate test was always the same: In the U.S., the Patent Office would ask a panel of esteemed and noted scientists to review the invention to substantiate the claim. The panel would always start their review by asking the inventor, "OK, if what you say is true, connect the output of your machine to the input and let's see if it keeps running."
When challenged, some inventors would simply turn and walk away knowing they couldn't pass the test. Other inventors, who despite their best intentions had little knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics, would connect their machines as asked, only to watch them come to a stop.
It's too bad the congressional committees who vote on subsidies and tax incentives don’t first make the ethanol industry pass the same test the U.S. Patent office has traditionally used for inventors who claim to have invented perpetual motion machines. “OK, if what you say is true, connect the output to the input and let’s see if it keeps running.”
Jimmy said, "Your position seems to be that subsidized petroleum is preferable to subsidized agriculture."
Not really. I don't think either ethanol or oil should be subsidized.
Jimmy said, "All industrialized nations have agricultural subsidies."
I am not against agriculture subsidies. Farmers are an important and fundamental part of society, and there is inherent value in ensuring that way of life -- even if it means using some of other people's tax dollars to do that.
But, I do want people to call a spade a spade. If the reason for subsidizing fuel ethanol is really to support agriculture, let's say that and blow away the smokescreen of "renewable energy" and "energy independence."
Best regards,
Gary Dikkers
Reply
Joe 10:20AM (10/29/2006)
I like reading the educational arguments here!
Gary, you said:
"But, I do want people to call a spade a spade. If the reason for subsidizing fuel ethanol is really to support agriculture, let's say that and blow away the smokescreen of "renewable energy" and "energy independence.""
That would be nice to say, but if it achieves a large percentage , say 25%, of energy independence - perhaps that is all that the big oil (money interests) need to be persuaded to invest in the infrastructure?
Another post in autobloggreen mentioned that it's a huge money maker for the government so far, despite their subsidies.
Overall, I agree with you, it's to support a flagging bunch of farms which could easily feed people, but for some reason are both run out of business and supported by the government. For example, why on earth would a farmer be required to pay property taxes if they are already creating large amounts of food for the greater good? Crazy.
Reply
Bill Thomas 9:51PM (11/27/2007)
Elon Musk essentially is correct, thanks Tony Belding for that reminder. But those technologies, or ethanol, aren't common, because of our reliance on fossil fuels. 2 hours ago I was talking with an elderly lady who said her father had a "sawdust furnace"!
What's the rush to open the Alaskan Wilderness to more drilling? We will still want petroleum in 50 or 100 years, that may give us foresight to preserve our planet; at worst the climate will be warmer and easier to work in! I'd suggest High School science and Autoshop courses emphasize these issues, such as energy efficiency, cogeneration, and alternative transportation ideas.
Back to the OT, I can't believe producing ethanol from basic agriculture requires more energy than it produces as a whole. For instance, the cost of "nitrogen fertilizer" per ton of corn is very small (oh about $5), other inputs, and harvesting equipment is a modest cost. But if gasoline is cheaper than bottled water, why would the average American care, unless they live on the coast, near a river, or a cold or hot part of the country. WAKE UP FOLKS!
Reply