Why do we increase the use of ethanol, when it itself leaves behind a bigger co2 footprint than oil?

Question

Why do we increasingly use biofuels such as Ethanol, when the carbon footprint left behind by it is greater than the footprint by oil (The only fuel made by the alcohol of plants that doesn't contradict itself is fuel made from the alcohol of sugarcane)? It puts more pollution in to the air to make ethanol fuel, then it saves us burning it to keep from using oil. It's like paying a man a dollar, just to save fifty cents in the long run! The increase want of the ethanol fuel is also making farmers use more land for corn and less land for other crops, in turn, Increasing the prices of grains and other farmer made foods. The want for land is also making farmers tear down forests (such as the ones in South America tearing down the Amazon), taking away the trees that absorbed carbon dioxide in the air.

i just read an article about ethanol, and i learned this info from it. I think it was in a Nat Geo magazine, but i'm not 100% sure

Answer 1

I just watched CNN’s  international Channel(3pm EST), breaking  the news that oil price spikes again.  But the anchor and the reporter assert it is China’s diesel demand contributed to the hike.

Waited a sec !  It is already THIRD time I am hearing CNN’s assertion of China’s diesel demand. The first time was about two weeks ago. What’s going on?

Then, Israel’s-Iran-attack-drill news flashing back-------Which Was Just Happened This Morning !  That “unmistakable signal”  is surely an act to have a consequence of  oil supply disruption !  Why is it not reported as a oil spiking cause ? !

Time to scapegoat China again before a major offensive ? To verify, I went to CNN web site , there it is :

China hikes fuel prices http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/20/news/int...  

China to raise energy prices

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/19/news/int...

But  nowhere saying that Israel’s-Iran-attack-drill  will unstablize the oil supply region, causing the oil  price up.

For Israelis Iran Strike Drill see

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c...

Answer 2

It also takes 1500 gallons of water to make every one gallon of ethanol.

Answer 3

It is true that corn based ethanol produces less energy than sugarcane, but there is a net gain and the comparison to paying a man a dollar to save fifty cents is not accurate.  The main unintended consequence appears to be some additional deforestation as other countries got on the corn ethanol bandwagon.  I would like to see some figures comparing the cost/carbon footprint of transporting oil halfway around the world, refining it and transporting it to distribution points, the op/ed pieces I've read don't make any mention of that to speak of.  Plus I have seen little information about the ability to use the byproduct of ethanol production as feedstock, which doubtless improves the efficiency of its use to some degree.

But to answer your question more directly, ethanol itself is a cleaner burning fuel than oil, plus it is one step in the direction of energy independence.  I believe one of the considerations is that we had a surplus of corn and no ethanol infrastructure, so we are in the process of developing the infrastructure and distribution system while using a product that we were subsidizing already because of low market prices; much of the cost of the fuel stays in our own pockets rather than going overseas, where it sometimes funds terrorists and often funds things like gilded Bentleys.

Further, research continues on more efficient production of corn-based ethanol, as well as other biomass such as secondary agricultural crops and algae.  The ethanol infrastructure is not entirely dependent upon corn; I for one would like to see stalks and other corn byproducts used to produce ethanol, which would essentially yield a twofer for each acre of corn grown-plus I would suspect that the byproduct of stalk production could be used as feed, further increasing the efficiency and reducing the carbon footprint of ethanol.

So it isn't quite as clear cut as some would have one believe.  Corn based ethanol is certainly not the solution, but ethanol is one piece of the puzzle that can help solve the problem and buy us time to develop other alternative energy sources that will work in concert with it.

EDIT: Stephan has added some more concrete figures with his 60-70% efficiency and 5 gallons of oil to produce 8 gallons of corn ethanol, if I have read his remarks in the way he intended.  I believe I have heard about the same ratio expressed in different ways; sugarcane, I have read, is about 8 times more efficient than corn in the production of ethanol, so there is a lot of R&D remaining to get the biggest bang for the buck out of corn, but I understand progress is being made...nonetheless, once we get the infrastructure for production and distribution set up, it will certainly behoove us to develop other sources of biomass for ethanol production.

However, I do think the figures are somewhat skewed as we were already producing the crops and using considerable amounts of oil to do so, which is included in the efficiency of production figures.  Once you use part of the crop for ethanol production, though, there is a byproduct that can still be used for feedstock, so that needs to be calculated into the ratio, and, as I said above, if we could begin to use part of the other byproducts-such as corn stalks, cobs and leaves-the efficiency would take a considerable jump.

I would also reinforce the point that we were producing considerable surplus corn each year and subsidizing it already to support production-or even non-production.  And I would add that using corn for livestock production is considerably less efficient than making ethanol out of it.  If we really want to leave a smaller carbon footprint, we should eat less red meat since an awful lot of oil goes into the production of Big Macs already.  You first.

I'd also like to take a look at a comparsion of emissions between gasoline and corn ethanol, not at the tailpipe but at the exhaust.  Does anyone have a link for that?

EDIT: Thanks, maybe I didn't follow the link far enough, what I am interested in is what kind of exhaust emissions and how much is emitted by internal combustion just to see how corn ethanol and gasoline compare.

Answer 4

It takes more energy to create ethanol than the energy it gives back.  It's expensive to make, has caused corn shortages and higher prices in the world's food supply chain, and can only be about 5% or so of the fuel you put in your car.  The rest needs to be gasoline.

I do suppose there is some merit in using it though.  It's cleaner  burning and doesn't affect engines in a bad way.  But it just seems so costly to make.  Other than lowering our gasoline useage by about 5% there doesn't seem to be any real benefit.  I'm all about saving money at the pumps, but it won't help there either apparently.

Answer 5

I currently run ethanol (corn alcohol) in a 1999 Dodge 3500 truck. But all Cummins engines were modified from the factory to run on BioD since around 1992 without any modification.

Most vehicles are already equipped to run on Alternative Energy. In fact you’re probably even driving one right now and didn’t even know it. Go to www agua-luna com for a list of this vehicles

The following are a couple types of products to make ethanol easily. There are however many materials one can use including sugar cane, corn, wood, etc. The information was cut directly from a guide I offer at www agua-luna com, it is complete but if anyone’s interested in other types of foods to use or a more specific step by step of the process, including building your own still legally, visit www agua-luna com

"THE usual sources of raw material for alcohol Ethanol production from starch are cereal grains such as corn, wheat, rye, barley, milo (sorghum grains), rice, etc. Other types of starch are available from potatoes of all kinds, Jerusalem artichokes, and other high-starch vegetables. Starch conversion is the standard method of production and the one we will discuss here.

It is possible, however, to make alcohol from sugar-producing plants (saccharine material) such as sugar beets, sugarcane, fruits, and others. These substances need no milling (as do grains), but they do require some kind of grinding or squeezing process. Rapid, efficient fermentation of these sugars has not been as well explored as the process using starch.

A third source of fermentables is cellulose, as found in wood and waste sulphite liquor. This more complex process requires the use of acids to reduce the material to wood sugars. Consequently, most do-it-yourselfers should stick to either starch or sugar.

MILLING

All grains must be ground before mashing to expose the starch granules and help them remain in suspension in a water solution. The grain should be ground into a meal -- not a flour! -- that will pass a 20-mesh screen. On a hammermill, however, a 3/16" screen will suffice.

Potatoes and similar high-moisture starch crops should be sliced or finely chopped. Since potato starch granules are large and easily ruptured, it isn't necessary to maintain the hard rapid boil which is required of the tougher, dryer "flinty" starches found in grains.

CONVERSION WITH ENZYMES

For small batches (5 bushels or less), fill the cooker with water (30 gallons per bushel), and add the meal slowly, to prevent lumps from forming. (When, cooking with steam, or at higher temperatures, it is possible to save energy by using less water at the beginning. But for the "small batcher" with an ordinary cooking apparatus, the most complete conversion is obtained by using the full amount of water right from the start to encourage a rapid rolling boil.)

Next, add 3 measuring spoons -- as provided -- per bushel of Alpha Amylase Enzyme (mixed in water) to the mixture and raise the temperature of the mash to 170 deg F (77 deg C), the optimum working environment for the enzyme. Hold the solution at that temperature for 15 minutes while agitating it vigorously.

At this point all the starch available at 170 deg F has been converted to dextrins, so it's time to raise the temperature of the mash to the boiling point. The concoction should be liquid enough to roll at its own rate -- if not, add 2 to 3 gallons of water. Hold the boil for 30 minutes to complete the liquefaction stage. All the starches are now in solution.

Now reduce the temperature to 170 deg F, using the cooling coil, and add 3 more measuring spoons per bushel of Alpha Amylase Enzyme (mixed in water). After 30 minutes of agitation at this temperature, all the previously released starches will have been reduced to dextrins, thereby completing primary conversion.

During secondary conversion the dextrins are further reduced to simple sugars (maltose and glucose) by the beta, or -- to be more exact -- glucoamylase enzymes. You need Alpha Amylase Enzyme and the yeast necessary to carry out secondary conversion and proper fermentation simultaneously, you can add 6 measuring spoons per bushel of the fermentation powder (mixed in water) as soon as you've brought the temperature down to 85 deg F (29 deg C) using the cooling coils."

Hope this helped, feel free to contact me personally if you have any questions if you’d like assistance in making your first self sufficient steps, I’m willing to walk you step by step threw the process. I’ve written several how-to DIY guides available at  www agua-luna com on the subject. I also offer online and on-site workshops, seminars and internships to help others help the environment.

Dan Martin

Alterative Energy / Sustainable Consultant, Living 100% on Alternative & Author of How One Simple Yet Incredibly Powerful Resource Is Transforming The Lives of Regular People From All Over The World... Instantly Elevating Their Income & Lowering Their Debt, While Saving The Environment by Using FREE ENERGY... All With Just One Click of A Mouse...For more info Visit:  

www AGUA-LUNA com

Stop Global Warming, Receive a FREE Solar Panels Now!!!

Answer 6

Because most decisions by government has the opposite results from what they had intended. But, they do not like to admit to being wrong so they continue poor policies.

If you think this is bad (it is), wait till they really get serious about tackling global warming. You ain't seen nothing yet.

Answer 7

Exactly Ethanol is good to give the US production of fuel to buffer against foreign oil.  In some cases it is also environmentally friendly .  After we reach a small production base it starts costing us more.

The science behind bio fuels

Bio fuels need to burn about 60-70% of fuel to get 100% of fuel.  It takes 3 gallons of ethanal to get 5 gallons.  As the source is harder to get that number starts going up.  Their is a group of scientists that say the 60-70 number is to low.  

That means you burn 8 gallons of fuel for 5 gallons.  Some will say you do not have to count the carbon of the 5 gallons because it took the carbon when the corn grew.  They are neglecting the sink of the soil.  They are aslo neglecting the burning of natural vegitation, and the carbon sequestored from the ground, as we do not have a great surplus of corn, that will come from cultivating new ground.  

The 8 gallons will also put out more hydrocarbons, CO NOx, h2o etc than gasoline

Bye the way, the reason ethanol is considered cleaner burning is because it puts out more CO2 and  H2O less by products.  I love the stuff you read here. LOL  Energy for all forms of gas is from breaking carbon and hydrogen in a cumbustion process.  Energy per energy comes out about the same.

Answer 8

Personally i'm confounded by the stupidity of people in thinking Ethanol is even a good thing.

It burns up small engines, it has 30% less power than gasoline, it has effected the food economy to the point there are 3rd world nations rioting over the high price of it all.

Then there's the politics of it all, some dumb iowa legislator pushing for a $310 billion farm program (which is our tax dollar at work....or should I say waste), when $290 billion of it is estimated to be 'give aways' The high prices of the commodities are making the farmers richer...why do they need a bail out ?

One thing not mentioned so far also is the  Alaskan pipeline. Yes, oil flows through it, and it hasn't hurt the caribou one bit. But other sources like coal can be added to water to make a "slurry" which also can be transported via pipeline.

Ethanol is an alcohol, and it mixes with water, so it can't be tranported by pipeline. You have to ship Ethanol the old fashioned way, via truck, rail road, what have you. That's a carbon footprint enviormentalists don't what you to realize.

So, just how much trouble are we supposed to do to the nation and the world in the effort of some enviro-whacho's wet dream of using food for fuel ? Ethanol isn't even making a dent in the amount of oil we used for energy on a daily basis, and even if it were, is it wise to push such an inefficient source of energy ? all for what ? Oil independants ? How about jumping on the democratic congress to get off their butts and stop resisting the will of the people, stop them from telling the oil companies that they can't drill or build refineries. How about someone give Bill Clinton a swift kick in the butt for vetoing energy legislation that would have given us 1 million barrels daily.

Our primary source of oil is Canada by the way for you "foriegn oil" freaks that want to act like its a crisis. Mexico was second but that just recently changed. Your problem isn't oil, its your own government. A bunch of do nothings worried about getting re-elected and so insulated form the common citizen and economics that they have no clue what to do about it, even when the average American is screaming at them.

Answer 9

It has taken a lot of politics to get ethanol mandatory in motor fuels, and it is going to take a similar effort to undo that decision. There is not way people can use less ethanol now without simply using less motor fuel in total.

Well, using less motor fuel in total is the objective, so on with that objective.

But at the same time it is about time to get the politics ramped up to cut back on ethanol production and inclusion in fuels.

Answer 10

Because most of the corn is grown in Iowa.  Iowa is an early primary state.

Answer 11

It is hard to believe so many of us thought Ethanol was a good idea. Let that be a lesson to all of us.

It drives up the price of corn and the price of all corn derived products, some of which is hard to believe they use corn. Look at the list of ingridients, too often you find corn.

Also, and incredibly, it takes so much energy to process the corn that, if the price of oil ever drops, Ethanol will be left by the wayside, because it will remain too expensive.

What idiot, or group of idiots ever approved Ethanol. Ops, I was taken in by the same propaganda. OK, don't do it again, you hear!

Answer 12

The whole topic of ethanol is riddled with inaccuracies, misconceptions and downright deliberate disinformation...the technology is certainly not going to remain static and corn-based ethanol will not be the only raw material used once the infrastructure and distribution system is in place.  Corn just happened to be readily available and produced in significant surpluses each year until now. I would say that the biggest issue at the moment is throwing too much political weight behind corn-based ethanol right now-but how was anyone to know how much was 'too much?'

You know, we talk about subsidies, but when the price of corn was below the cost of production and the government was paying subsidies to take land out of production entirely, how much sense did THAT make?  I don't know about anybody else, but I'd a lot rather see subsidies being paid either directly or indirectly going to fund development of an alternative energy infrastructure than doled out for set asides.  And I'd prefer to see the producers earning a profit on their crops rather than making their living by having government pay the difference vs. the cost of production.  And I'd a LOT rather see more of the significant amount of money I spend on fuel each week go to domestic producers of the raw materials than go overseas to line the pockets of oil producers, some of which doubtless finds its way into the pockets of those who hate and would destroy us and western culture altogether if they could.

Someone a few weeks ago posted here that farmers are earning, on average, $77,000 a year for their work, and while I can't personally vouch for that figure, I don't think that qualifies as 'getting richer' or an excessive income considering the expertise that is required in the many arenas that are demanded of farmers or the risk they take due to the vagaries in weather.  For one thing, it takes such a huge investment to get started that that alone is causing more and more young people to abandon agriculture for more lucrative fields.  I know I wouldn't take the risks, study and work as hard as what modern agriculture demands for a paltry eighty thousand bucks a year.

Corn-based ethanol has its problems, as does any fuel, but it is inaccurate to claim that it destroys engines, that is not arbitrary at all-just as various engines are designed and adapted for other fuel types and additives, ethanol extracts certain demands from engines and it is not entirely different than trying to run a gas engine on diesel fuel or use unleaded fuel in an engine that does not have hardened valve seals.  Certain adaptations are required if you want to run a car on E85-or pure alcohol fuel.

Neither is it accurate to say that ethanol makes 30% less power than gasoline-it may not be as efficient in terms of mileage at this point, but racers have been using alcohol-based fuels for DECADES to maximize the performance of their cars, and even as we sit here yakking away about stuff we really don't know that much about, products are being brought to market for better and more economical use of ethanol, just as they have for other fuels and drivetrains for years and years.  As more of those products go mainstream we'll see improved mileage, and as other technologies improve we'll become more efficient in terms of environmental footprint required to produce ethanol, not to mention the raw materials that are used-like stalks and other corn byproducts, and other biomass like algae.

Of course, ethanol is a liquid to begin with, so it doesn't have to be mixed with anything to flow in a pipeline, pipeline structure is just one of the considerations in developing infrastructure and distribution systems.

And finally, corn-based ethanol production, while diverting some farmland to corn production and causing no little  concern about deforestation, is only a small part of the increase in food costs we are seeing world wide at this time.  With fuel and fertilizers more than doubling in cost in recent years, this is a much bigger factor from production to distribution than use of the product-much of which was surplus-being used to produce ethanol.  Rising demand around the world for food, as well as weather events such as drought and etc. also play a bigger role in commodity costs than the use of some of the corn crop for ethanol production.

I agree that we will be better off when we can use corn more efficiently and other raw materials altogether in the production of ethanol, but we shouldn't base our judgements about the current state of alternative fuel development on limited understandings of what is really going on today.