Talk:Ethanol fuel in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Needs Criticism Section
Concerns that should be addressed: Driving up Food Prices Potentially Causes More Global Warming than it Eliminates (once you consider what is required to produce it) Subsidies many consider wasteful Increases Erosion Encourages Deforestation etc. --RedHouse18 17:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The author of this article writes: "Pimentel's study was disputed by a number of researchers, forcing him to revise his figures", however I'm not aware of any peer reviewed studies that dispute Pimentel's findings to any significant degree. If the author is aware of such studies, he/she should cite them. The USDA study, on the other hand, has been criticized by academics (see Patzek (2005) for a detailed discussion of the USDA study). For instance, among other very optimistic assumptions, the USDA study’s findings rest on an “energy credit” the researchers give to ethanol. The credit is argued to reflect the fact that amount of energy it would have taken to produce some co-products (mostly animal feed) that are sold to farmers. The problem is that if ethanol is produce in quantities large enough to actually offset gasoline use, then there would be more co-product than demanders of it, meaning we would have to use energy to dispose of it. Removing this co-product from the USDA’s accounting and the net-energy balance becomes about even.
The fact that Brazillian experience with ethanol is never mentioned in the article reflects the general lack of scientifical neutrality related to this kind of fuel research in the US. The big companies simple dont want to stop using gasoline and will create any counter-propaganda needed to do this. And combined by the general alienation of the US citizen looks like they will manage to keep ethanol (and any other alternative fuel for that matter) out of the market.
We (Brazil) have a very sucessfull ethanol and biodiesel industry, and this is not even mentioned in the article...
Moving Information from Ethanol fuel - Work in progress Rifleman 82 06:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The FUTURE of CORN ETHANOL for the forseeable future
Distiller's Grain is a byproduct of corn ethanol production. It is a dark yellow substance that can be fed to cattle. The debate about energy balance with respect to corn ethanol production overlooks the fact that the feed value of corn is not lost. It simply becomes better suited for cattle consumption (as opposed to hogs). Furthermore, it seems highly doubtful that one could estimate with great accuracy the amount of diesel fuel and gasoline needed to manage all of the corn acres in the country. Not only does the number of corn acres planted vary considerably from year to year, but the study implies that corn farmers do not also farm other crops: soybeans, alfalfa, etc. Inevitably, the amount of fuel used to plant at least some of these non-corn acres will be included. One must also consider the ever-consolidating and increasingly energy-efficient nature of American agriculture. One might reasonably infer that ag subsidies, in their current form, slow this process down, hampering efforts to move the energy balance in ethanol's direction.
Greenshift is the answer and here's why:
The process increases the Corn Ethanol Yields SIGNIFICANTLY!
Corn Oil Extraction GreenShift's Patent Pending Corn Oil Extraction System™ Refining Two Fuels Out of One Kernel
GreenShift provides technology transfer and applied engineering services based on process innovations and an array of proprietary clean technologies that are designed to favorably impact your ethanol production by helping you use natural resources more efficiently. Their patent-pending high-yield Corn Oil Extraction System™ is designed to extract crude corn oil out of the distillers dried grain (“DDG”) by-product of the dry mill ethanol production process. Our Corn Oil Extraction System™ is available for direct application at ethanol facilities where it will extract crude corn oil that we will purchase for a premium to the value of the oil to you as a commercial feed and then arrange for its conversion into a second clean fuel – biodiesel.
Their clients have the option of either purchasing our Corn Oil Extraction Systems™ or taking advantage of our 100% financing program. In either case, we enable our clients to participate in the long-term production of biodiesel, and we offer the option of returning a portion of the biodiesel produced for sale back to our client’s community.
You also have the option of generating additional earnings by participating in our Co-Location program, where GreenShift will co-locate a jointly-owned biodiesel production facility on-site at its expense in return for your agreement to operate the facility.
Features: Our Corn Oil Extraction System™ safely recovers up to 75% of the corn oil trapped within the DDG. This enables a 100 million gallon per year dry mill ethanol production facility to recover up to 7.5 million gallons of crude corn oil. Our Corn Oil Extraction System™ is automated and very simple to operate and it adapts to an existing plant with only minor stoppage for plant tie-ins.
Benefits: The Corn Oil Extraction System™ creates compelling opportunities to increase your profitability. In its current form, most DDG is worth an average of only $0.035 per pound or $0.26 per gallon of entrained corn oil. However, once the corn oil has been recovered in our program, its value increases as a crude oil for biodiesel production.
They offer two extraction programs: 100% Financing and Purchase. In today’s market (with diesel spot at about $2.65 per gallon), the price we pay for the extracted oil equates to about $0.25 per pound or about $1.86 per gallon for clients that purchase our systems, or about $0.18 per pound or about $1.35 per gallon for clients that take advantage of our 100% financing option. This equates to between $7 to $10 million in additional income for a typical 100 million gallon dry mill ethanol facility. In addition, removing oil from the DDG can also be expected to reduce drying costs, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and volatile organic compounds and to enhance the marketability of the remaining DDG as more de-fatted DDG can be included in the daily rations fed to beef and dairy cattle.
Our 100% Financing Program: Clients that participate in our 100% financing program can expect to generate significant additional earnings for no cost. The following chart outlines the options we provide to 50 million gallon and 100 million gallon per year ethanol producers and the estimated annual return with diesel spot at $2.65 per gallon and distillers grains at $0.035 per pound:
Unit No. Description Extracted Oil (gallons) Biodiesel (gallons) Estimated Annual Return 50 Million Gallon Per Year Ethanol Plant COES50 - I Thin Stillage 1,500,000 — $1,654,733 COES50 - II Thin and Whole Stillage 3,250,000 — $3,323,289 COES50 - III Thin and Whole Stillage & Co-located Biodiesel 3,250,000 5,000,000 $3,842,802
100 Million Gallon Per year Ethanol Plant COES100 - I Thin Stillage 3,000,000 — $3,309,406 COES100 - II Thin and Whole Stillage 6,500,000 — $6,646,579 COES100 - III Thin Stillage & Co-Located Biodiesel 3,000,000 5,000,000 $3,774,016 COES100 - IV Thin and Whole Stillage & Co-Located Biodiesel 6,500,000 10,000,000 $7,653,104
This DRASTICALLY CHANGES THE EFFICIENCY OF CORN ETHANOL NOW!
--Dualcor Dave 05:24, 8 March 2008 (UT)
[edit] Future developments
Personally, I think corn ethanol currently is viable. But while the short term remanes debatable. I really have to disagree about the long term. Corn Ethanol will become a viable and energy eficant comodity in the future.
Currently it takes about 1 unit of petroleum to grow and process 1.5 units of corn ethanol but I’m pretty sure that with the
- Advent and promotion of cheaper non-petroleum fertilizers and herbicides.
- Increased corn acreage from new methods of farming.
- Farming equipment and machinery that runs on E85.
- Renewable sources of electricity for power.
- New more efficient and coast effective production processes and manufacturing methods being developed.
- The discovery of new and better Enzymes for chemical processing,
The creation of corn ethanol will become a much more energy efficant and coast effective process leaving a greatly reduced environmental footprint.
All these technologies are curently being developed and progressing, and corn ethanol will become a much more viable product, and a great boon to our economy, our environment and our society.
With all these technologies under development, in just 30 years it will take just 1 unit of petroleum to grow and process at least 5 units of corn ethanol.
Making corn ethanol in the furture a truly environmentally friendly and energy efficiant alternative to petroleum and gasoline, and turning corn ethanol into truly an energy sorce and not just an alternative means of procecing or storing oil energy.
Besides it beats being a puppet to the oil companies. --J intela 05:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This needs a lot of work
I will keep coming back to this, but it seems very POV toward Pimentel and Pitzek. They really aren't very highly regarded by anyone but detractors. For a tiny bit more credibility, you might look at the Earth policy Institute, but when I spoke to Lester Brown he explained the coming war between the coasts and the Midwest. I got off the phone before he used the word "Thunderdome." Anyway, I will try and help clean this up as I have time. Menkatopia 16:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Other Issues?
Is there any reason why everyone is considering only the energy efficiency of Ethanol? There are other benefits to using E85 and even E10:
- Crude oil is a limited resource. There is a certain amount of it and the Earth won't be making any more for a long time. We can grow more corn or whatever other vegetable matter we'd like to make ethanol from. If (unrealistically) everyone started using E85 tomorrow instead of gasoline, the existing world supply of crude oil would last close to twice as long, possibly many decades or even centuries longer.
- The use of E85 decreases the US reliance on crude oil from foreign sources. The US capacity to harvest crude oil pales in comparison to its demand for it. We give away loads of wheat and corn to foreign countries. We could instead use the wheat and corn to produce ethanol and reduce our trade imbalance.
- The argument has been made that production of gasoline from crude oil is 100% efficient because it's the only thing we do with crude oil. That's an argument to maintain the status quo. If we re-tooled our production capacity for ethanol, we may find ways to improve the efficiency of the process and make it better to produce than oil. Over time, we could come to consider production of ethanol 100% efficient because that's the way we're used to looking at things.
Maybe it's not all about the numbers.64.81.103.70 02:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Improperly placed section
I think the Debate section should be placed in a more general article on "ethanol as a fuel" or maybe for the sustainability of ethanol fuel production.
[edit] Patzek and Pimentel
Since Pimentel seems to be about the only still pushing this concept of a negative energy balance with ethanol (with the assistance of Patzek) perhaps it would be in our best interests to have full disclosure here.
Patzek worked for Shell Oil Company as a researcher, consultant, and expert witness. He founded and directs the UC Oil Consortium, which is mainly funded by the oil industry at the rate of US$60,000-120,000 per company per year.
Pimentel has been basing his numerous studies on corn yeilds from 1980 with a refusal to admit yeilds have increased a great deal in the last 25 years. He also bases his studies on other figures from the late 80s and early 90s and even when pointed out he refused to update them and instead uses the same debunked figures in study after study.
Clearly this guy has a chip on his shoulder, and I suspect that chip is being funded by the oil companies.
Here is one interesting quote I found: "This [Pimentel's] report was debunked by, among others, Michael Wang and Dan Santini of the Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory, who conducted a series of detailed analyses on energy and emission impacts of corn ethanol from 1997 through 1999. [...]Only Dr. Pimentel disagrees with this analysis. But his outdated work has been refuted by experts from entities as diverse as the USDA, DOE, Argonne National Laboratory, Michigan State University, and the Colorado School of Mines."
If we are going to tell the whole story, there should be at least some reference to the perceived bias of Pimentel and Patzek especially when so many studies have refuted their claims. This isn't as if the USDA study is the only one out there....and it should be disclosed.
Costner (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] picture
here is a picture of an ethanol station of US Ethanol's in case it would prove useful. --Emesee (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
