Study Shows Ethanol Energy Efficiency Is Growing 41 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
A new study by the University of Nebraska shows that current ethanol production technology is 2 to 3 times more efficient than previously thought. Earlier studies focused on older, less efficient technologies and this new study helps allay the fears that corn ethanol production uses more energy than it provides.
Here are some of the initial results from the study:
- Ethanol has a positive net energy balance: 1.5 to 1.6 units of energy for every unit of energy used to produce it.
- 13 gallons of ethanol are produced for each gallon of petroleum used in the ethanol production life cycle.
Ethanol producers continue to increase their efficiencies and over the last 5 years have been able to produce more ethanol from a bushel of corn and reduce the energy necessary in the process. Ethanol doubters who use past results to bolster their arguments are doing the industry a disservice.
I will close with a quote from Alan Tiemann, a Nebraska Corn Board member:
"We’re talking about energy security and energy diversity, and keeping more of our energy dollars in this country,” he said. “Those kinds of positives are good for the United States as a whole, and specifically for rural America, where renewable ethanol is produced.”
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication in the last week
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Those with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last week
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,
as ranked by their peers-
1
User 353732
-
2
Moon Kil Woong
-
3
doubleguns
-
4
optionsgirl
-
5
Mayascribe
Top Commenters » -
1
-
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
I think I like better algae-based biofuel as an alternative fuel down the road.
And nuclear power is even better than oil. You dont need to tell me you are an al gore fan.
are you willing to get rid of all subsidies? We could start by getting rid of the subsidies oil and natural gas receive.
> jack
If your goal is to promote renewable vegetable based fuels to replace our dependence on foreign oil, then, you should be touting sugar, NOT corn for this purpose. But you WON'T, which means you're all about the corn industry, NOT energy independence.
Some folks think so
Clean Air Performance Professionals
I agree with Duude, of course, when he writes, "So then, let's get rid of the subsidy and see how it works." Wheels 14 writes, "Are you willing to get rid of all subsidies? We could start by getting rid of the subsidies oil and natural gas receive."
Of course we should. But let's compare apples with apples. According to a recent study by Friends of the Earth, "Big Oil, Bigger Giveaways",
www.foe.org/pdf/FoE_Oi...
oil companies will receive around $33 billion from the federal government over the next five years. That comes to $6.6 billion per year, divided over 75 billion gallons (1.8 billion barrels) of production, or $0.088 per gallon.
tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav...
By contrast, the federal volumetric ethanol excise tax, starting next year, will be $0.45 per gallon (or $0.67 per gallon of gasoline equivalent). Assuming average production of 11 billion gallons a year over the next five years, that will come to a total of just under $5 billion per year, just for that one subsidy. Add in other federal subsidies (e.g., the small ethanol producer tax credit and subsidies for R&D and demonstration plants), and total federal outlays in support of ethanol will easily come up to parity with oil ... but for 1/10th the amount of energy.
Oil companies do not need federal subsidies. Some ethanol producers might "need" subsidies to survive. But why should we keep them dependent on the public teat? And why should ethanol producers have priority over other sectors for government hand-outs during these austere times?
Nuclear power is the worst choice. Please read the pdf The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy. Please read what cleanwisconsin.org has to say about nuclear power. It as many problems than oil has. In a dangerous world with terrorists and rogue nations, the last thing we need is to build thousands of nuclear power plants all over the world, further spreading the availability of fissionable material. Look at the angst over Iran's pursuit of supposedly peaceful use of nuclear energy.
Argonne national labs says that an airliner crashing into a nuclear power plant could cause a complete meltdown, even if the containment building isn't compromised. Think the twin towers was bad?
Nuclear power plants need billions of gallons of water each to cool. Each reactor will cost over $500 billion to clean up and dismantle when it is used up. Each reactor's share of Yucca mountain storage is $200 million.
The entire process of aquiring uranium has a huge carbon footprint and is generally very dirty. Nuclear power takes much longer to get up and running than solar and wind. Nuclear plants cost three times as much to build per kilowatt than wind farms. If you read the proposals by T Boone Pickens and setamericafree.org and the proposal published in Scientific American called A Solar Grand Plan, you will see that we could easily have 80% of our grid powered by solar and wind by 2050.
We are being dis-informed about the potential of these renewable sources. Don't believe the lies.
You equate subsidies for corn ethanol with subsidies for renewable energy generally. When so much non-renewable resources (eroded soil, fossil water in the western Great Plains, phosphate, energy to produce the N fertilizer, fossil energy used in farming and processing the ethanol) are used in its production, calling it "renewable" is stretching the definition.
The reason these numbers are not well known is that it takes a Sherlock Holmes to uncover all the tax credits and subsidies that oil and gas have received over so many years, often tucked into bills as earmarks.
I did make a mistake about getting rid of subsidies. I wasn't so much thinking about ethanol. It was just my reaction to the often heard complaints that say "oh but solar and wind can't survive without subsidies". So, I mispoke. I'm not a big advocate of ethanol unless it proves to be economical and environmentally makes sense.
> jack
As for the $84 billion a year estimate from the "Set America Free Foundation", I can't find in the document. The figure I find is $43 billion in lost local, state and federal tax revenues. That figure is $10 billion higher than the $33 billion reported by Freinds of the Earth, and is presumably explained by the inclusion of state and local tax breaks and subsidies.
The report also enumerates numerous other costs of oil, some of which would be hard to confirm or refute without looking at the original studies from which teh data are derived.
But back to the comparison with ethanol subsidies, the figures I referred to above were just federal subsidies for ethanol. Throw in state and local tax breaks and subsidies, and the total value comes to over $1 per gallon currently.
www.earthtrack.net/ear...
Of course, if one were to expand ethanol use on the basis of (U.S. produced) cellulosic ethanol, then you're looking at $1.01 per gallon ($1.50 per gallon of gasoline equivalent) just in federal tax credits, not to mention subsidies for related infrastructure and (at least in the near term) for plant construction. Add to that various state sales-tax and fuel-tax exemptions for ethanol (or E85) and the total cost could exceed $2.00 per gallon of gasoline equivalent in a number of states.
Of course, as the Set America Free Foundation document points out, there are indirect costs associated with oil dependency. So to are there from biofuel use, especially biofuels made from cropland. Higher prices for food and other agricultural materials is just one. Economic losses due to supply disruptions could also be high: witness the panick that preceded this year's corn crop before the floods finly subsided.
Again: the country needs to wean itself off of oil, and stop subsidizing it, but it is hardly a winning strategy to try to buy itself freedom from that dependency by creating a new industry that itself is massively dependent on subsidies.
You still need to subtract the savings of farm subsidies not spent against the ethanol subsidy. If in fact you believe ethanol caused the price of grains to increase.
My car gets better mileage when I use 10% ethanol.