The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Ethanol isn’t worth the energy > Comments

Ethanol isn’t worth the energy : Comments

By Jeremy Brown, published 21/11/2005

Jeremy Brown argues using ethanol for fuel may produce more greenhouse gases than using petrol.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
The world leader in ethanol production is obviously Brazil. They have been successfully converting sugar cane to ethanol for many years. Brazil started out by doing it out of necessity. They could not afford the imported oil and needed to make their own fuel.

Countries like Canada and Australia that are worried about greenhouse gasses would be better off importing ethanol from Brazil or else considering bio-diesel from oil crops rather than subsidizing inefficient ethanol producers.

It appears that farmers are simply using global warming as an excuse for more pork barrelling in the rural sector.
Posted by Rob88, Monday, 21 November 2005 10:59:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I appreciated Jeremy Brown's clear and straightforward analysis of the limits of ethanol as a way to supply transport energy. His analysis makes me wonder whether Brazil's ethanol production is getting an uncounted fossil fuel subsidy, perhaps in the form of not counting the cost of the various agricultural inputs into producing the sugar cane in the first place. I suppose as long as we are producing sugar cane, making ethanol from it could be a useful processs. But producing ethanol from grain, as our government proposes to to looks like a loser according to what Brown says, though it would be a source of income for Liberal party supporter Manildra.

From what I know of the energy economics of biofuels, they cannot supply a reasonable source of energy to replace what we now burn as petroleum. The way ahead looks more and more like reduction of energy use especially by switching from road based transport of all forms, and especially from cars to public transport, as well as organising our economy to become drastically less transport dependent.
Posted by RichardM, Monday, 21 November 2005 11:31:38 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would have to wonder whether the net energy return for conventional oil production takes into account the energy costs in making and repairing the refinery.

Sylvia.
Posted by Sylvia Else, Monday, 21 November 2005 12:02:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jeremy Brown has certainly convinced me that the ethanol route is going in the wrong direction. But I confess that as a dedicated petrol-head, the use of less powerful fuels has never been a desirable option to me. I like my petrol with a heady full force bang - not blended rubbish.

But as suggested, more public transport for everybody else would leave more petrol for people like me. That is an excellent idea.

In the meantime, oil continues to flow, petrol gets more expensive and oil companies continue to make record profits. So what's the problem? It's just life as usual.
Posted by Maximus, Monday, 21 November 2005 12:04:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jeremy Brown makes some good points. HOWEVER, what all of this fails to account for is that, thus far, all the 'out of whack' economics presumes that ALL the inputs are FOSSIL FUEL BASED...and that just aint necessarily so. It is now completely possible to generate the various inputs via solar sources, steam sources, and other renewables, which tilts the balance right back towards NET ENERGY GAINS, and therefore good economics as well as good health policy and sound environmental policy. I appreciate the dilemma, and I fully understand that very few, THUS FAR, can do other than burn petrol or diesel to run tractors, etc...however that is fast changing. Keep your eyes peeled for www.energychallenge.com.au. Currently under construction, this site will have more than a few things to say on the subject. cheers,
Posted by omygodnoitsitsitsyou, Monday, 21 November 2005 12:14:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some time ago CSIRO and other researchers were investigating the use of plant species from the genus Euphorbia for generating petroleum. There are over 2000 species worldwide. They range in habit from annual weeds to trees and contain a latex, typical of most succulents. They mostly originate from Africa and Madagascar, with a number of species in Australia and all are significantly draught tolerant growing in semi arid landscapes. The latex from these plants was proposed as a potential bio-fuel in the early 1980’s with promising analyses conducted indicating the latex to be very similar in composition to petroleum, contain light end alkanes. I remember developing tissue culture techniques to mass produce these plants should broad scale cultivation take place for petrol generation. From the reports I was reading back then, petroleum could be produced for around $1.20/Litre. A very expensive fuel when oil derived petroleum was around the 20-30 cent mark. However, today’s prices make it a very real prospect.
I have moved on since then but would be very interested in a discussion of what happened to that possibility? What ever happened to growing the petrol plants??
Posted by Woodyblues, Monday, 21 November 2005 12:17:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I understand the plight of sugar cane growers in Australia and their need to obtain additional financial returns from their crops, the call for a sugarcane ethanol industry is by far less attractive than the production of the sweetener sorbitol.

Ethanol is a 19th century alcohol fuel product whereas ‘hydrogen’ is the fuel of the twenty-first century for all vehicles including trucks, buses, tractors, airplanes, ships and cars.

It will be interesting to observe the reactions of Federal and State Governments to hydrogen fuels when they are tested as to whether they support the interests of the foreign multinational oil conglomerates or what is in the best interests of Australia’s people.

More on Hydrogen is available from…

Selwyn Johnston – Leichhardt Independent 2007

http://www.johnston-independent.com/hydrogen_fuel.html#.
Posted by Selwyn Johnston, Monday, 21 November 2005 12:18:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One major point that devalues the line of argument used in this article against Ethanol is that Ethanol produced from Sugar Cane as produced by the Brazil is positive regarding greenhouse gasses. I don't know the references but the studies have been done.
Brazil can produce ethanol from any crop they would wish so why don't they produce ethanol from grain crops. It is simply not as efficient as from sugar cane.

Whilst Jerremy is sugesting ethanol from grain in Canada is currently not as efficient as it could be ( new processes could change that) it is not the same situation with ethanol produced from sugar cane in Brazil nor would it be from ethanol produced from sugar in Queensland using the Brazialian processes in the future.

John Powell
Posted by caneharv, Monday, 21 November 2005 2:05:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given the Australian landscape's position in relation to the pressures on it from present agricultural practices, diverting farmland to ethanol production is not in its interests.
However, the production of an alcohol (methanol or ethanol) as a byproduct of landscape restoration (from salinity, for carbon-to-soil, etc.) may be quite a plus. It is the only positive spin I have heard of regarding alcohol as a fuel.
Posted by colinsett, Monday, 21 November 2005 4:11:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What Brown has not provided is the url that will enable us to check the validity of the assumed inputs of building, running and repairing the tractor etc. The actual amount per litre is highly dependent on the amount of use the tractor is put to and this exposes the analysis to considerable subjectivity. The extraordinary liberties with the facts that were taken by its precursers, the so called 'ecological footprint' analyses, were well documented. So there is no way that this stuff can be accepted until we get to weigh up the family jewels.

It is also incumbent on such an analysis of broader costs of a given volume of product to consider the broader benefits of the use of that volume of product. That, generally, is why cost clerks are rarely invited onto the board of directors, they lack the broader perspective to put those costs into proper context.
Posted by Perseus, Monday, 21 November 2005 5:23:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, despite the fact that my original post (above) was written as tongue in cheek, the reality of the situation is as I wrote it - the end user has the final say.

Whilst all you so-called boffins/pseudo-boffins argue the point about alternative fuels, real users only care about what they can get for their buck.

Until you high-fallooting theorists start to get real about delivery of product to the consumer, your brain waves and sentiments aren't worth a pinch of it.

Stop the bulsh' of the greeny alternatives. Turn on the new fuel now. And it had better deliver quality power, because we the fuel consumers really know and do care about what we're getting. We may be petrol-heads, but we're not stupid and when it comes to value for money, where power is concerned, we really do know what we're talking about. We ain't no lefty academics, we're practical men.

And to the hydrogen man, bring it on - it's the very best fuel ever, but show us how you can create it and still be cost effective. At the moment NO fuel is anywhere near as cost effective as regular gasoline/petrol. If you're engine wise, you'll know what I'm talking about. If you're some sort of gas-bag academic, without grease under your fingernails, who knows nothing about fuel efficiency, then you won't know what I'm talking about.

Power comes from expending energy - simple fact. Oil, petrol, is very good at doing it and nothing to date comes anywhere near it for the price or availability.
Posted by Maximus, Monday, 21 November 2005 8:11:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Claimed energy return on energy invested (EROEI) is disputed for different fuels, particularly when the EI part involves unproven economies of scale. Pimental et el claim the energy gain from US corn ethanol is less than 1.0 while others estimate the gain from sugar cane derived ethanol as at least 1.5. Advocates of ethanol fermented from cellulose via genetically engineered yeast claim possible energy gains of 7 or 8. The energy gain for petrol is thought to be about 30. Cellulosic ethanol was in the VIP cars at the recent G8 Summit courtesy of Canadian company Iogen, a fact strangely omitted by Jeremy Brown. A dramatic petrol extender is an 85% ethanol 15% petrol blend used in hybrid cars with extra batteries that can be charged by renewable energy. Proponents claim these cars can stretch each litre of petrol to 300km or so. Before condemning ethanol you want to consider factors such as oil depletion, local energy self sufficiency, the greenhouse effects of most other fuels and whether it might be beneficial to keep some of the world's 600 million cars on the road.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 21 November 2005 8:42:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brown's article overlooks the fact, that not all farming systems
are as energy dependant as those in North America. Australia's clover-ley farming rotations for instance, replace much oil based nitrogen with legume based nitrogen. Wheat for instance does not need irrigation either.

Roger Crook, one of our scholars here in the West, claims that a tonne of wheat can create 400l of ethanol. I haven't checked his figures, but if he is correct, then clearly Brown is wrong, or his farming model to create ethanol is wrong.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 21 November 2005 9:50:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where do they come from. In Australia today a wheat farmer, farming less than 1000 acres, single handed, is heading for bankruptcy. This takes lots of energy, as in the USA, or any where else. 30 years ago, one good crop in three was viable. Now its two in three, & many of our wheat farmers are going out backwards. Then we get clover-ley farming. In fact it takes more oil to plant clover than it takes to make the fertaliser the clover can produce. Ethanol will never be a viable replacement for petrol, the imputes are just too great for it to work. Bio diesel has some prospect, but where do we find an extra 20 million acres of productive farm land. Hydrogen has to be the answer, but unless it is produced by electrolyses it uses more oil than it saves, & the electrolyses will have to be with solar or nuclear generated power. As another fossil nuclear has a limited life so its solar, & it will probably take less than 20 million acres to produce. All the airy fairy rubish about wind, co generation etc has to stop, It just takes our eye off the main game. Brisbanes co generation plant is a huge flop, as expected. Trying to run a plant on 2 or 3 different fuels is just not viable. Then we get the myth of public transport. All our cities grew up with the car. We are not europe. It can not work while we live & work where we currently chose, & transport will have to be prohibitively expensive before we will change. Besides, any number of studies tell us that public transport uses 15% more energy, per passenger mile, than private cars. If we could just get the greens, the academics & the planners off the pipe dreams of what they would like to have work, & on to what has a chance of working we will be a lot cloesr to a moving in the right direction.
Hasbeen
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 12:08:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"In fact it takes more oil to plant clover than it takes to make the fertaliser the clover can produce. Ethanol will never be a viable replacement for petrol, the imputes are just too great for it to work. Bio diesel has some prospect, but where do we find an extra 20 million acres of productive farm land"

Hasbeen, you clearly havent the foggiest about farming :) Clover takes just a few litres of biodiesel to sow, can add nitrogen to the soil for years and years in quite large amounts. Hardseed ensures that it won't need resowing during the crop cycle. Yes, 1000 acre wheat farms are too small, today they are 5000 acres. A small % of their land is all it takes to grow enough biodiesel to grow all the wheat you want, or other energy crops. As nobody wants wool anymore, no reason the sheep flock can't be halved to make space for energy crops, thats alot of land.

The energy solution will come from many sources, all playing a role. Ethanol, biodiesel, gas, (convert your car tomorrow if you wish), efficiency, solar, wind. After all its not as if any oil tap is being shut off tomorrow, that stuff will be around too for the next 100 years or so.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 6:24:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The points made about Brazilian ethanol being a clearcut net energy producer are documented in
http://www.bbibiofuels.com/worldsummit/files/Carvalho-WSET.pdf
with Energy returns now being about 8 to 11 FOLD (eg 800% plus). Potential energy return from any cellulose biomass in the feedstock will be much higher than presently achieved too, as the new economic cellulose hydrolysis method developed by NREL-Genencor-Novozymes comes on stream. Currently this is being trialled in Spain at Abengoa's ethanol plant, to be commissioned 2006. This Spanish plant will convert wheat straw to ethanol in first instance.
Current conversion of starch feedstocks to liquid fuel should be regarded as a loss leader option to enable rapid introduction of cellulose (straw) plus starch conversion processes using Novozyme or similar enzyme catalysts by about the year 2010. These offer approx. double the energy return of current starch based feedstocks.
Bear in mind that energy efficiency in the Brazilial biofuel industry underwent a steady improvement over the past 30 years learning curve, and cereal based biofuel will do this also in the future. For example synthetic N fertilizer input fossil fuel energy can be reduced by innovation in genetics and chemistry.
gmopundit.blogspot.com
Posted by d, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 7:00:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spin doctor Jeremy Brown can not escape the fact that at some point in the future there will not be any oil.
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 11:54:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem with analysis like Brown's and most of the rebuttal is that it is very difficult to account for inputs accurately and universally. The solution is to have a market in carbon emissions, then the price mechanism will determine what technological answer is the most appropriate in which circumstances and there will be no need to account at all.
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 1:13:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003138.html#003138

In a related and overlapping discussion, occuring at Future Pundit and elsewhere, there is an argument that government mandated percentages for biofuels in Europe will drive loss of rain-forest in Brazil. The above Future Pundit link eventually tracks back to a recent New Scientist Article on this.

Tech Central amusingly captions this as:
"Be careful what you wish for"
The moral of course is
"Green and Clean" isn't necessarily what it seems.

Friends of the Earth in the UK seem to think if the biodiesel is produced "sustainably" the rain forest will be ok. I doubt it.
NS:
Europe's small market in biofuels was dominated by home-grown rapeseed (canola) oil. But surging demand from the food market has raised the price of rapeseed oil too. This has led fuel manufacturers to opt for palm and soya oil instead. Palm oil prices jumped 10 per cent in September alone, and are predicted to rise 20 per cent next year, while global demand for biofuels is now rising at 25 per cent a year.

Roger Higman, of Friends of the Earth UK, which backs biofuels, says: "We need to ensure that the crops used to make the fuel have been grown in a sustainable way or we will have rainforests cleared for palm oil plantations to make bio-diesel."

GMO Pundit http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/more-publicity-for-green-biofuels.html
Posted by d, Friday, 25 November 2005 8:11:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is the energy wasted should a canefarmer burn the cane before it is harvested, included in the calculations?
Posted by Eugenia, Thursday, 15 December 2005 10:50:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
* In 1908, the Ford Model T was designed with a carburetor adjustment that could allow the vehicle to run on ethanol fuel produced by American farmers.

* Since it was first launched in 1975, the Brazilian Ethanol Program remains to date the largest commercial application of biomass for energy production and use in the world. By the mid-'80s, most cars coming off the production line ran on pure ethanol. From the 1970s to the late '90s, ethanol yields per acre had risen from 242 to 593 gallons.

* Indústria Aeronáutica Neiva, a wholly owned Embraer subsidiary, has received type certification for its ethanol-fueled Ipanema cropdusting aircraft from Brazilian aviation regulating agency Centro Técnico Aeroespacial (CTA). The Ipanema is the first series production aircraft in the world coming out of the factory certified for flying with ethanol.

These 3 examples just show that Ethanol is around for a long time, but actually just got acceptance in the last few years. In these days with record high oil prices, more and more governments are promoting the production and usage of ethanol. Didn't the corn growers in the US already appreciate rising corn prices?
Wasn't there a sugar price rise in QLD, thanks to Mr. Peter Beattie?
Why would Bill Gates invest $84 Million in an Ethanol company, if he wouldn't see the potential of this alternative fuel?
Willie Nelson is doing well with his sell of Biodiesel, as I understand.
So in our perspective, the doors are wide open for this renewable energy source and it will be the future in the energy sector.
Posted by BioMaxx, Tuesday, 10 January 2006 4:10:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'll post this here too

Ethanol mixs in fuel are not a bad thing if pure. What they don’t tell you its not possible to be pure unless you buy it in sealed drums direct.

Fact ethanol absorbs water from the air and with contact.

Fact ALL fuel stations have water in the bottom of the tanks. The pickup for fuel in these tanks are not at the bottom, so unless the water isn’t monitored and comes up too high it not a problem. Straight petrol floats on water and doesn’t mix or absorb water.

On the other hand any ethanol mix will come into direct contact with water at all fuel stations, a fact.

So straight away your running a small % of absorbed water through your cars which will effect some parts such a fuel injectors over time.
Posted by vt2vx, Thursday, 12 January 2006 12:19:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy