Ethanol and Energy Independence
“The U.S. transportation sector is almost entirely dependent
on oil... Biofuels,
such as ethanol
have the potential to displace oil use in transportation
fuel.”
—The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Fuel economy estimates for all cars and trucks
in the USA, including flex-fuel vehicles, are given in miles per
liquid gallon (MPG). If the USA is serious about reducing gasoline
consumption and ending foreign oil dependence, then the important
measure should be
miles
per gallon of gasoline (MPGG).
MPG vs. MPGG
Ford's F150 flex-fuel pickup is designed to run on either
gasoline or a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline (E85).
The 2010
Ford F150 flex-fuel Pickup, is estimated to get 14 miles per gallon
in city traffic and 20 miles per gallon on the open road.
20 MPG vs. 130 MPGG
E85 contains only 15% gasoline per gallon of liquid fuel.
Therefore, a flex-fuel vehicle, using E85, will burn one gallon of
gasoline for every 6 and
2/3 gallons of E85 consumed. At 20 miles per gallon on the open
road, the 2010 Ford F150 flex-fuel pickup, running on E85, will
travel over 130 miles before it burns a
gallon of gasoline.
Engines can be optimized for ethanol—Alcohol
fuels (ethanol or methanol) can tolerate compression ratios
up to 15:1 or higher (like diesel which generally uses compression
ratios of around 13:1 and gets higher mileage as a result). Gasoline
is restricted to compression ratios below 10:1.
Gasoline engines throw off most of their power in heat losses. Ethanol’s
higher octane offers engine manufacturers an opportunity to significantly
improve engine efficiency with higher compression ratios that will
convert more of the fuels energy into force that can turn the wheels,
and reduce the heat losses.

A typical gasoline powered automobile is only about 25% efficient.
In other words, out of the 100% thermal energy potential of a gallon of
gasoline, only about 25% of the energy is converted to real mechanical
work that turns the wheels of the car — the other 75% is lost in
the form of wasted heat and friction.
Ethanol and Net Energy
There is much discussion, or argument, about Ethanol: Does it take
more energy to make it than you can get back from it?
The argument focuses on the energy consumed by the tractors and the
farm equipment, the trucks that transport the ethanol to market, and
the fertilizer that is made from fossil fuels, as well as the amount of energy required
to extract the sugar from corn starch (or cellulosic
biomass) and convert it to ethanol.
Some people say ethanol is a net energy loser—don’t
believe it, but even if it was, so what? Popcorn sold in theaters is a
net energy
loser!
In the past, nobody really cared about “net energy” because
there was plenty of oil and gasoline was cheap. People just wanted to
fill
their tank
up and drive, kind of like eating
popcorn at a theater without being concerned about how much “energy” was
spent cooking the popcorn. Today, we can’t just worry about how
much fuel costs, now we are expected to also worry about how much
energy is
spent making it.
So, how much energy is “spent” making ethanol, and why should
we care?
It takes a lot of thermal energy to make ethanol from corn. In general,
about 35,000 Btu of heat energy is required to produce a gallon of
ethanol. For comparison, the energy content of ethanol is about 75,000
Btu per
gallon.
People who want to discredit and discourage the use of ethanol in America
often employ deceptive arguments about net energy by claiming that
ethanol production
consumes more “fossil fuels” than can be replaced by ethanol.
(The original arguments against ethanol also included the solar
energy “consumed” by the corn plant during the growing season.)
All attempts to discredit ethanol with the fossil fuel argument are deceptive
because the argument is based on a false premise: it assumes that fossil fuel
always means oil. Yes, petroleum is a fossil fuel, but not all fossil fuels
are petroleum. The fossil fuel most often used for ethanol production is
natural gas.
About 85% of the ethanol plants in the U.S. use natural gas as a source
of thermal energy. The remainder use propane, fuel oil, or coal. Newer
plants
are developing renewal sources of thermal energy, such as methane from cow
manure produced at nearby dairy farms or from landfill methane. Geothermal
energy is also
being developed.
Geothermal Energy Utilization in Ethanol Production
size: 212 Kb - 4 pages
Bruce
Dale,
Professor of Chemical Engineering at Michigan State University (MSU)
provides some very important information about “Net Energy”.
Professor Dale tells us: “Net energy analysis is
fundamentally wrong: it assumes that all BTU are equivalent. This is
obviously untrue; otherwise, we would not pay over ten times as much
for electrical energy derived from coal as we do for the energy in the
coal itself. All energy conversion systems lose some quantity of energy
in order to increase energy quality. Gasoline from petroleum actually
has a poorer net energy than ethanol from corn. The
MOST RELEVANT measure of energy efficiency for biofuels is the liquid
fuel
produced per unit of PETROLEUM CONSUMED.”
MIT ethanol analysis confirms benefits of biofuels —Regardless of the energy balance, replacing gasoline with corn-based ethanol does significantly reduce oil consumption because the biomass production and conversion process requires little petroleum. And further MIT analyses show that making ethanol from cellulosic sources such as switchgrass has far greater potential to reduce fossil energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.

The amount of petroleum consumed in the process of making ethanol is less
than 10% of the total energy within a gallon of ethanol — this covers
every stage related to ethanol production, including planting, growing,
and harvesting the corn as well as transporting the ethanol to where consumers
buy their fuel and fill their gas tanks.
Diesel fuel made from petroleum is consumed by the tractors and other farm
equipment
as well
as
the trucks
that
transport
the ethanol to market. If the corn fertilizer was produced by petroleum
refineries, then that too contributes a portion of the overall percentage
of petroleum used to make a gallon of ethanol.
A joint study by the Department of Energy (DOE),
Argonne National Laboratory and General Motors found a 10 to 1 net energy
gain—Ten
gallons of ethanol
for every gallon of petroleum consumed.

Some people believe that more fossil energy is required to produce ethanol
than it provides as fuel. But in fact, a study by DOE's Argonne National
Laboratory and General Motors Corp. concluded that today's corn growers and
ethanol plants consume only about 7 British thermal units
(Btu) of fossil-fuel energy for every 10 Btu of fuel they produce. In other
words, it takes less energy to produce ethanol than is supplied by ethanol
fuel, so the fuel provides a net energy benefit.
The benefits are even greater in terms of replacing petroleum. Because most of the fossil-fuel energy is supplied by coal and natural gas, only about 1 Btu of petroleum is consumed for every 10 Btu of ethanol fuel produced. That means that every gallon of ethanol fuel produced significantly reduces our use of petroleum.
The energy balance is even better for the production
of cellulosic ethanol. Because the process residues will be used to produce heat and power for the conversion
facility, biomass will provide 95% of the energy needed to make the fuel, with the remaining energy coming from petroleum.
Because the process is only about 45% efficient, the net result is the same as that for corn ethanol: 1 Btu of
petroleum is burned for every 10 Btu of ethanol fuel produced. However, the process uses
less fossil fuel overall and thus produces fewer greenhouse
gas emissions. Gains in processing efficiencies and economies of scale should boost the petroleum replacement and greenhouse gas benefits of cellulosic ethanol significantly.
From
Biomass to Biofuels — National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
August 2006
size: 977 Kb - 6 pages
Net Energy Basics: Rebutting Some Ethanol Myths —Debunking Pimentel
and Patzek Studies
size: 200 Kb - 10 pages
Thinking Clearly about Biofuels: Ending the Irrelevant “Net Energy” Controversy
— By Bruce E. Dale, Ph. D. Professor of Chemical Engineering, Michigan
State University
size: 19 Kb - 2 pages
With Cellulosic Ethanol, There is No Food vs. Fuel Debate
Ethanol
made from cellulosic materials, rather than corn grain, renders the
food vs. fuel debate moot, according to research by Michigan State
University ethanol expert.
As more and more corn grain is diverted to make ethanol, some groups have
become concerned about food shortages. Dr. Bruce
Dale, Michigan Agricultural
Experiment Station (MAES)
chemical engineering and materials science researcher, has used life
cycle analysis tools,
which include agricultural data and computer modeling, to study the
sustainability of producing biofuels — fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel
that are
made
from renewable resources.
“We grow animal feed, not human food in the United States,” Dale
said. “We could feed the country's population with 25 million acres
of cropland, and we currently have 500 million acres. Most of our agricultural
land is being used to grow animal feed. It's a lot simpler to integrate
animal feed production into cellulosic ethanol production than it is
to integrate human food production. With cellulosic ethanol, the 'food vs.
fuel'
debate goes away.”
Dale, who also serves as associate director of the MSU Office of Biobased
Technologies, presented his findings March 27, 2007 at the American
Chemical Society annual meeting in Chicago
Cellulosic ethanol is made from the stems, leaves, stalks and trunks of
plants, none of which is used for human food production. Dale, who
has studied ethanol for more than 30 years, said that as the country
moves toward large-scale
cellulosic ethanol production, the yield of so-called energy crops—grasses
and woody materials grown for their energy content—also will dramatically
increase.
“This will reduce pressure on our land resources,” Dale said.
“We'll be able to get more raw material out of one acre of land.”
Dale also pointed out that many of these energy crops will be grown on land
that isn't prime agricultural acreage, but rather on marginal land that isn't
growing a commercial crop right now.
“The evidence indicates that large-scale biofuel production will increase,
not decrease, world food supplies by making animal feed production
much more efficient,” Dale said.
Sustainability
Analyses of the Biobased Economy — The
biobased economy will grow rapidly during the 21st century. A combination
of low cost plant raw materials and gradually improving biorefinery process
technologies for converting these raw materials into a variety of fuels,
chemicals, materials, foods and feeds will drive the adoption of the biobased
economy.
The biological sciences will have a particularly powerful impact on both
the raw materials and the processing technologies underlying the biobased
economy... Our sustainability analysis efforts are intended to outline
how this new industry can achieve both environmental and economic sustainability.
For perhaps the first time, humanity can design and develop a new industry,
the biorefining industry, to achieve both economic and environmental goals. — Bruce
E. Dale
Relief from soaring prices at the
gas pump could come in the form of corncobs, cornstalks, switchgrass and
other
types of biomass, according to a joint
feasibility study for the departments of Agriculture and Energy.
The recently completed Oak
Ridge National Laboratory report outlines a national strategy in which 1
billion dry tons of biomass -
any organic matter
that is available on a renewable or recurring basis - would displace
30 percent of the nation's petroleum consumption for transportation.
"One of the main points of the report is that the United States can
produce nearly 1 billion dry tons of biomass annually from agricultural
lands and still continue to meet food, feed and export demands," said
Robin Graham, leader for Ecosystem and Plant Sciences in ORNL's Environmental
Sciences Division.
—Growth in biomass could put U.S. on road to energy independence
Facts on increases in fuel and food prices
- Corn accounts for less than 5% of the price of a box of corn flakes.
- The cost of marketing food is responsible for
80% of the retail cost of food. Marketing costs are the difference
between the
farm
value
and consumer spending for
food at grocery
stores and restaurants. Marketing costs include the increased
price of diesel fuel paid by trucking companies.
- The price of rice has nearly doubled. Rice
is not used in the production of biofuels. Corn for ethanol cannot
be grown in rice paddies.
- In 2007, the same year the U.S. produced a record amount of
ethanol from corn, the U.S. increased its surplus of corn to more
than 1.4 billion bushels. In a record ethanol year, the U.S. actually
fed more of the world by increasing its exports of corn by 6%.
- As a whole, fish prices are up. Fuel prices account for approximately
60%-70% of operating costs of fishermen. Fish are not used
in the production of biofuels.
- An increasing amount of biofuels are produced from nontraditional
feedstocks such as waste products from the beverage,
food, and forestry industries.
In the very near future, biofuels will be produced from
agricultural residues such as
grain straw, sugarcane bagasse, corn stover, municipal
solid waste, and energy crops such as switchgrass and algae.

Do we have enough land? Professor Dale gives us the
answer: “The range of opinion on this subject varies enormously.
A USDA-DOE
study indicates that we can sustainably produce about 1.3 billion tons
per year of cellulosic biomass, sufficient to produce at least 100
BILLION gallons per year of ethanol. I believe this estimate is conservative
because: 1) we have at least 800 million acres suitable for energy crops,
2) we
have devoted very little attention to increasing energy crop yields,
3) we have not explored the opportunities for integrating food/feed production
with energy crops, and 4) biomass conversion technology is very far from
mature. Given proper emphasis to increasing energy crop yields, maturing
biomass conversion technology and integrating food/feed production with
energy crops, it should be POSSIBLE TO PRODUCE SEVERAL HUNDRED
BILLION GALLONS PER YEAR OF ETHANOL and other liquid fuels while
simultaneously increasing food/feed supplies. We will not choose between
food or fuel; we will produce food and fuel.”
Economic Viability? Professor Dale responds: “The
United States has a serious problem. Our
national and state economies are absolutely dependent on liquid
fuels. The United States currently uses more than 140 billion gallons
of gasoline and almost 40 billion gallons of diesel fuel annually. More
than 60 percent of the petroleum we use is imported, and the percentage
is rising.
At $20 per barrel, oil is cheaper to
refine than biofuels are,” Dale explained. “But when oil
costs $40 a barrel, biofuels are very competitive.
At current corn prices, corn ethanol is competitive with gasoline when
petroleum is about $45/barrel. When cellulosic biomass conversion
technology is mature, we should be able to produce hundreds
of billions of gallons
of liquid biofuels at much less than $1 per gallon (energy equivalent
basis) and be competitive with petroleum at about $25 per barrel.
Hence it is critical that we do both the fundamental research and
technology
deployment at scale required to rapidly develop mature biomass conversion
technology.”
Everything
Biomass-Dale Research Group —The Biomass Conversion Research
Laboratory at Michigan State University.
Recommended reading:
Detoxing
Our Oil Addiction By Bruce E. Dale, Professor of Chemical Engineering
size: 258 Kb - 4 pages
The history of ethyl alcohol fuel —Bill Kovarik, Ph.D., Radford
University

|